Trump Set to Recognize Jerusalem – but No One Should Panic Just Yet

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,848 other followers

Source Article from

Bozell & Graham Column: Brian Ross Should Be Fired

When you’re the source for “breaking news” but it turns out to be “faking news,” you’re in trouble.

ABC “senior investigative correspondent” Brian Ross greeted Gen. Michael Flynn’s plea deal with Robert Mueller by claiming Flynn is “prepared to testify that President Trump, as a candidate, Donald Trump, ordered him — directed him to make contact with the Russians which contradicts all that Donald Trump has said to this point.”

It was a nuclear explosion. Within minutes the stock market plunged 350 points.

It quickly became clear that it was flat wrong. Later, ABC News added on the evening news what they disingenuously called a “clarification” – actually, Trump directed Flynn to contact the Russians after the election, which not only isn’t scandalous, it’s completely expected for a new president. After more uproar, they finally found it to be a “serious error” and suspended Ross for four weeks without pay.

It’s a classic journalistic mistake to try and be first to report something before it’s verified. But in the Trump era, when liberals believe the president is a uniquely dangerous threat to America – even the world — any news that could lead to speculation about Trump’s impeachment or resignation is like catnip. Journalists are prone to over-hype anything that could spell “The End.”

This suspension might be an adequate punishment….if Ross hasn’t made a long line of whopper mistakes. Conservatives remember the movie-theater mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 and how Ross came on in “breaking news” mode to announce there was a “Jim Holmes” on a list of Colorado Tea Party Patriots…as if that was a perfect starting point to find mass shooters. It wasn’t. But there are more.

In 2001, Ross claimed the anthrax used in deadly attacks after 9/11 in Washington and New York was coated with bentonite, a chemical compound found only in biological weapons made by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen in Iraq. Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer remembers “I explicitly told ABC News not to go with the anthrax story because it was wrong. Brian Ross went with it anyway — and one week later issued a murky, hard to understand correction.”

In the first month of the Iraq War in 2003, Ross reported Saddam’s cousin Ali Hassan Al Majid (or “Chemical Ali”) had been killed. Several media outlets forwarded that report. Six months later, U.S. officials announced they had him in custody.

In 2006, Ross claimed Pakistani officials had arrested Matiur Rehman, an al-Qaeda explosives expert who kept an “official” list of terrorist recruits, and could lead to Osama bin Laden. Pakistanis denounced the report as ‘fictitious.” ABC consultant Alexis Debat had warned ABC it was not true a day after the report had initially been broadcast.

Also in 2006, Ross breathlessly relayed that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert was under FBI investigation for bribery in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. “Justice Department officials describe the 64-year-old Illinois Republican as very much in the mix of the corruption investigation.” This prompted the Justice Department to deny there was any federal probe of Hastert, who demanded a retraction and threatened to sue ABC.

None of these whoppers ever led to any suspension of Ross, who’s been at ABC since 1994. His liberal colleagues have given him six Peabody Awards and six George Polk investigative reporting awards, so his reputation inside the network was apparently unscathed by his large errors.

It’s a little bizarre these days that sexual harassers like Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer are dumped abruptly, while Brian Williams has an hour-long nightly show on MSNBC and Brian Ross gets a slap on the wrist. These supposed guardians against “fake news” look like fact-mangling isn’t really a serious offense. Brian Ross should be fired.

Source Article from

Those with a high cardiovascular risk profile should eat dark chocolate with olive oil, new study finds

Image: Those with a high cardiovascular risk profile should eat dark chocolate with olive oil, new study finds

(Natural News)
In recent years, the medical community has put a lot of effort into educating people about reducing their cholesterol levels in order to protect their heart health. Of course, those who do have elevated cholesterol levels are often prescribed statin drugs like Lipitor, Zocor and others to lower these levels. In fact, these are among the most prescribed drugs of all time.

Nonetheless, these toxic drugs carry serious side effects, including muscle pain and weakness, increased liver enzymes, asthma complications, and birth defects in pregnant women, to name just a few.

This doesn’t mean, though, that there isn’t a healthy solution to reducing cholesterol levels naturally. In addition to maintaining a healthy weight and exercising regularly, a recent study has unlocked another key to taking care of your heart: eating dark chocolate and extra virgin olive oil together. (Related: How dark chocolate really is the “food of the gods” – Fight inflammation, Alzheimer’s, cancer and more.)

The study, undertaken by researchers from the University of Pisa in Italy, who presented the results at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress in August, concluded that dark chocolate enriched with extra virgin olive oil can lead to improved heart health and a better cardiovascular risk profile.

“A healthy diet is known to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Rossella Di Stefano, a cardiologist at the University of Pisa, and the lead author of the study. “Fruits and vegetables exert their protective effects through plant polyphenols, which are found in cocoa, olive oil, and apples. Research has found that the Italian Panaia red apple has very high levels of polyphenols and antioxidants.”

The researchers set out to determine whether a combination of either dark chocolate and olive oil or dark chocolate and Panaia red apple might halt the progress of atherosclerosis (a build-up of plaque on the artery walls, causing obstructed blood flow, and potentially a life-threatening blood clot) in otherwise healthy people with cardiovascular risk factors.

The ESC explained in a press release:

The randomised crossover study included 26 volunteers (14 men, 12 women) with at least three cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, or family history of cardiovascular disease) who received 40 grams of dark chocolate daily for 28 days. For 14 consecutive days it contained 10% extra virgin olive oil and for 14 consecutive days it contained 2.5% Panaia red apple. The two types of chocolate were given in random order.

Progression of atherosclerosis was assessed by metabolic changes (levels of carnitine and hippurate), lipid profile, blood pressure and levels of circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). EPCs are critical for vascular repair and maintenance of endothelial function.

The researchers took urine and blood samples at the beginning of the study and again at the end. The urine samples were analyzed for endogenous metabolites using proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and circulating EPC levels were evaluated with flow cytometry. Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure levels, smoking status, lipid profile and glycaemia, were also carefully monitored for all participants.

The results were quite astounding. At the end of the 28-day study, the researchers found that EPC levels were significantly increased after consumption of the olive oil-enriched chocolate. Carnitine and hippurate levels were considerably decreased – which is a good thing – both in comparison to baseline figures and to the apple-enriched chocolate.

Most encouragingly, consumption of the olive oil-enhanced chocolate resulted in significant increases in high-density lipoprotein (good cholesterol) and sizable reductions in blood pressure levels. (Related: Olive oil antioxidant naturally kills all cancer cells tested within an hour.)

So, if like millions of others you’ve been advised to take steps to decrease your cholesterol levels, you now have a fantastic excuse to increase your consumption of delicious dark chocolate. Just make sure you take some pure virgin olive oil with it! Perhaps melt that chocolate in a little olive oil and pour over fresh strawberries? Yum! (Related: Discover more from nature’s medicine cabinet at

Sources include:



Source Article from

$20 Trillion US Debt Should Keep People Awake At Night: Federal Reserve

Home » Economy, Financial Crisis, North America » $20 Trillion US Debt Should Keep People Awake At Night: Federal Reserve


With Congress wrestling over a tax reform plan that critics say would explode the government budget deficit, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said she also is concerned over the surging level of public debt.

A Senate committee passed the GOP-sponsored proposal, which would slash the corporate tax rate and lower individual income rates for many Americans.

However, the price tag of the plan is in the area of $1.5 trillion at a time when the Congressional Budget Official already is projecting a deficit of more than $1 trillion in the years ahead and with the total debt level at $20.6 trillion and rising. Of that total, $14.9 trillion is owed by the public.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

There’s something important you should know about Bitcoin

After spending the last few days in the Philippines scouting new factory locations for one of my businesses, I flew back to Singapore this morning to conclude negotiations with a large, publicly-listed conglomerate that’s made an offer to buy one of our assets.

It’s been a hectic trip so far. But while in town, I had a chance to see my friend Gregor again– the entrepreneur I interviewed in last week’s podcastdiscussion about precious metals vs. cryptocurrency.

In the podcast, Gregor and I talked about Bitcoin security– specifically the fact that very few people properly (i.e. securely) store their cryptocurrency.

And the more valuable these cryptocurrencies become, the higher the likelihood of theft.

For example, hackers are now frequently engaging in sophisticated phishingattacks, in which a user will receive an email with a subject line like, “You’ve just received 0.02841 BTC”.

Naturally, most people open the email.

The email goes on to state that the user has received a Bitcoin payment, and to please log in to his/her online Wallet to verify the transaction.

Once again, most people click on the link and attempt to log in to their wallet accounts.

The page they click on looks almost exactly their online Wallet provider’s website. But in reality it’s a fake.

So whenever an unsuspecting victim enters his/her username and password on the dummy website, they’re basically just giving that information to the hackers.

Tricks like these end up scamming people every single day.

Then there’s the risk of the online wallet websites themselves being hacked.

If just a handful of our 600,000 monthly readers donated one dollar, I could easily crush my modest yearly fundraising goal of $10,000 by January 31 2018. If you value the information on this site and have the means, please consider making a donation below. Your support will help us expand, keep ads off the site and buy out any remaining advertising contracts we have with vendors. No contribution is too small and will undoubtedly go towards the many expenses this site incurs. If would like to learn more about our mission, please visit our manifesto here.

Thank you so much for your support,
Thomas Dishaw Editor @ Gov’t Slaves

Source Article from

Why science should listen to "lone genius" dissenting voices

Image: Why science should listen to “lone genius” dissenting voices

(Natural News)
The concept of the “mad scientist” with crazy hair who dallies about the lab mixing chemical-filled beakers has become something of a stereotypical image in the public mind. That’s because entertainment and media almost always portray scientists as “lone geniuses” who rely solely only on their own intellects and imaginations to come up with new theories or proofs. But is this actually the case? Or a better question might be: Are these lone genius voices something to be ignored simply because they might not coincide with the consensus?

History shows us that the so-called dissenting voices who appear in the history books (and on television and in movies) who have gone it alone in making some groundbreaking discovery actually had close contacts with whom they corroborated. While they may have contradicted the prevailing views of their day, these individual scientists were able to make the discoveries they did precisely because they went against the grain.

This seems to be the way real science works, after all. The scientific consortium gets comfortable within the confines of its own dogmatic views – to its own detriment. Science grows stale in such environments until along comes a lone genius to shake things up. There are many examples of this throughout the course of time, one prominent example being Sir Isaac Newton. Newton, of course, is credited as being one of the fathers of modern physics – if not its proverbial patriarch.

But just like many other genius scientists, Newton is also pegged in the history books as having preferred to work alone, which some believe may have stemmed from inherent distrust and dislike of his status quo colleagues. You see, in order for Newton to make the amazing discoveries he did, it was likely necessary to go it alone for a while as his breakthrough theories likely would have been ridiculed by all of those other scientists anyway.

James Clerk Maxwell, the father of electromagnetism, was similarly isolated, at least according to official accounts. And, of course, the quintessential mad scientist himself, Albert Einstein, who in developing the theory of general relativity, did so all by himself – crazy hair and all. All of these examples suggest that working alone – and more importantly, challenging the status quo – is often important for drawing truth to the surface.

The great geniuses of our time DID have close confidants and fellow colleagues who affirmed their work

But even despite their reputation for having worked alone in procuring their genius, each of these men actually did collaborate with others in the process. It isn’t necessarily recorded in the history books this way because, quite frankly, the way they worked did deviate from the norm in the sense that they weren’t on the same page as many of the other scientists of their day. So to onlookers, it may have appeared as though they were lone geniuses when, in fact, they were geniuses supported by other geniuses.

Newton, for instance, is said to have looked down on the vast majority of his contemporaries while also communicating regularly with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a kindred spirit of sorts who himself was working on the development of calculus. Similarly, Maxwell studied at a number of prestigious universities where he regularly interacted with people of high intelligence. And Einstein made most of his famous discoveries while in the presence of close confidants whom he used as sounding boards for his ideas.

So despite what the history books and modern entertainment would have us believe, none of the great geniuses of our time were “islands.” While their ideas may have existed in seeming isolation as compared to mainstream thought, the work they uncovered was a joint effort in most cases. But it all starts with critical thinking, which can only come when an individual – not a group – embraces the truth with conviction, even if almost everyone else isn’t necessarily convinced.

“Because the for-profit GMO sellouts, poison pushers, vaccine zealots and corporate front groups continue to conduct their activities under the false name of ‘science,’ the term is losing its meaning,” says Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, about the problems of modern-day “scientific” consensus. “As we’ve seen all too frequently, ‘science’ can be easily distorted or exploited to achieve a desired political or profiteering goal.”

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

“Vegans Are Too Weak & Low Energy To Train With Me” – This Should End The Debate Between Diet Types

Next Story

“Vegans are too weak and are too low energy to train with me.” The man who said these words is Ido Portal, an amazingly talented individual who has mastered the art of movement. But why would he say such a thing? This is what I want to address today. The reason why I say “end the debate” is because it’s become more about identities and emotion than anything scientific or knowledge based.

Stop the Fight Between Diet Types

As you can see in the video below, Ido said these words during a Skype call with a guy who follows the 80/10/10 diet. Clearly he’s not seen Frank Medrano.

It’s comments like these, including emotionally charged judgments from the vegan crowd, that create conflict between people who represent different diet types. The reality is, every vegan or vegetarian was probably once a meat eater, and through their journey started cutting it out. And likewise, a meat eater could have once been a vegan or vegetarian and felt it wasn’t for them. Or that meat eater could be on their own journey of shifting their diet. The same could be said for the vegan or vegetarian who may also one day switch.

The reason we fight about diet types is because we identify with them and thus become emotionally invested. Someone says something and we lump ourselves into that crowd and immediately take it as a personal attack.

Regardless of which side you are on, does it make sense to judge someone else because of the food they are eating? Do you actually know the journey of the other person and why they eat the way they do? Is it possible that maybe they could one day adjust their diet to be just like yours? And would that make them any better of a person?

The reality is, the ignorance on both sides of the “diet wars” is astonishing. You have people like Ido saying vegans can’t be strong and aren’t fit enough to train with him, and you have vegans or vegetarians who say meat eaters are animal haters who are going to die young because of their choices.

Yet neither perception serves a purpose and both have their merits and inaccuracies.

It’s Okay to Talk About It, But Switch the Perspective

I myself don’t eat meat or dairy products. My diet is essentially vegan, but it’s not 100% strict. And do I call myself vegan? No. Why? Because I choose to eat what I feel will keep me healthy and that’s simply how I look at it. I also choose to avoid animal products because I don’t wish to support their production. But I wouldn’t judge anyone who does eat them. I also don’t label myself because the “diet war” has created such a negative stigma on various diet types, a stigma that’s the result of ignorance and a lack of empathy. Choosing to label yourself can create some really awkward social moments, and that’s a sad thing.

No matter what diet type you follow, find out information for yourself before generating opinions and judging others. I’ve heard so many stories of  “this person tried this diet and got sick” that I could write an entire encyclopedia on this topic alone. The challenge is, the vast majority of the time, the people trying different diets are not doing it “right” to begin with — too much food or too little, too much processed foods and not enough fresh, poorly balanced meals, etc.

The truth is, until we educate ourselves on the full implications — medical, environmental, and social — of our diet, we are simply talking from an uneducated space that often turns emotional. Like with any solution, even if we find out what is a better route for us all as a whole, does it make sense to cast out others who don’t follow the new understandings?

Let’s remember that at the core, we’re all the same. We’re all human beings and we are all here for the same purpose. Whether it’s something like diet or even a political view, let go of the differences and just accept each other. Let’s talk about things, learn from one another, be open, move things forward, but let’s stop fighting about who is right and wrong. It’s not helping anyone, and only divides us further.

Related CE Article: Plant Protein v Protein From Meat – Which One is Better For Your Body 

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

MSNBC Guest: Republicans Are ‘Domestic Terror Group,’ Should Be ‘Locked Up’

On Saturday’s AM Joy, the MSNBC show at one point looked like a caricature of itself as frequent guest Fernand Armandi actually made the incendiary claim that the Republican party is a “domestic terror group,” and then asserted that voters should not only vote them out, but “consider possibly afterwards locking them up.”

The Democratic pollster — known for making wildly over the top statements on the show — made his hyperbolic comments about locking up Republicans not in response to any sort of charges of legal wrongdoing, but instead in response to simply having a policy disagreement about how to handle the CHIP program.

The rest of the panel behaved as if the off the wall remarks were simply a normal conversation as no one commented on his absurdity, with even Republican panel member Katon Dawson just calmly responding that he believed the CHIP program would be renewed.

Host Joy Reid set up the discussion by recalling the debate over whether to renew CHIP. She then turned to Amandi and posed: “We know that Florida has a large abundance of people who are on CHIP. In a state like that, can the members of Congress from Florida afford not to renew CHIP? And why haven’t they pushed for it?”

The frequent liberal guest began his cartoonish analysis:

It’s an excellent question, Joy, You know, Florida and many other states would be decimated — Florida’s children, other children. And I think it leads to the question: Is it any surprise that the party that is pro-pay-for-play, pro-Putin, and now with Roy Moore, pro-pedophilia, the fact that they’re anti-children, is that any surprise? I don’t think it is. And I think, Joy, this is emblematic — this CHIP scenario where you mentioned nine million children — children — without health insurance.

He then added:

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

I think if you take a step back, one has to ask themselves — and I think the American people should ask themselves the broader question: What has the Republican in the last 10 years done to help the American people? What have they done? This is not a political party — this is a domestic terror group. And I think what the American people should consider when they ask themselves that question — with a party that has done nothing to help the American people — is to vote them out and consider possibly afterwards locking them up, Joy.

Unfazed, host Reid turned to Dawson and posed:

You know, I’m going to go to Katon that. I’m sure Katon has thoughts on that. Katon, I know you’re not a fan of the Affordable Care Act, but can the part really, you know, get away with the idea of not renewing this program? It’s nine million kids.

Dawson seemed to barely notice the outlandish statement that he was reacting to as he calmly began his response:

I would predict to you that the party or the politicians will find a away to make this palatable and affordable. And the already have addressed it in the House. It’s pretty tough to leave nine million children behind, and that won’t happen 

Source Article from

Holiday traditions should reflect what you truly love

And for most debt-weary Americans, shopping is not on that list.

Did you know that 24 percent of Millennials are still paying off credit card debt incurred during the last holiday season? This shocking fact comes from the 2017 Consumer Holiday Shopping Report released by NerdWallet and reported on here by CNBC. The number is slightly lower for Gen-Xers at 16 percent and Boomers at 8 percent.

And yet, despite this lingering debt, many Millennials will join the hordes of shoppers both today, on Black Friday, and over the coming weeks in order to ensure there are gifts under the tree for friends and family.

Apparently they don’t even like it. Another report by Pew Research Center lists the top three things that Americans dislike about the holiday season, and all three relate to purchases: consumerism/materialism, financial worry, and stressful crowds. A paltry 1 percent says shopping is their favorite thing about the holidays.

Joshua Becker cites another revealing statistic on his website, Becoming Minimalist:

“Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (69 percent) said they would skip exchanging gifts this holiday season if their friends and family agreed to it.”

So why do we do it?

Why do we perpetuate this unpleasant cycle that stresses us out and incurs debt far beyond what we can pay off in a reasonable amount of time? It is absurd.

The fault lies partly in our attachment to what we erroneously perceive to be tradition, yet is really more of a habit. There is a difference, as Becker explains:

“Traditions help us celebrate and honor recurring events in our lives. Whether we are setting aside a day for gratitude or setting aside an entire season to celebrate faith, family, or both, traditions should draw our attention to the underlying reason for the season. Traditions should not detract from the season, they should elevate it.”

Buying stuff doesn’t have to be part of our tradition if we don’t love it. Becker quotes Rachel Jonat, a.k.a. The Minimalist Mom:

“We don’t have to continue holiday traditions that leave us broke, overwhelmed, and tired.”

I love this quote, as it can be applied to so many aspects of the holiday madness, not just shopping. (I’m thinking about the enormous Christmas dinner that keeps us stuck in the kitchen for much of the day.)

This could be the year when you reexamine your family’s holiday traditions, choosing which to keep and foster and which to get rid of forever. You don’t have to do what everyone else is doing, especially if it’s getting you into debt or creating any level of anxiety in your life. Just do what serves you and your family.

Source Article from

Why You Should Never Sign the Refusal to Vaccinate Form

As traditional school schedules resume in the coming days, many parents are bringing their children to their health care providers for sports physicals and well-child visits. If you decline vaccines for your child, your child’s doctor may ask or even insist that you sign a refusal form stating you were offered information about vaccines and you opted out of one or more vaccinations.

This piece of paper may seem harmless, but there are important reasons to decline signing this form when you decline vaccines. Read on to learn why you should never sign this vaccine refusal form.

The Refusal Form From the AAP May Be Used to Scare You

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), “within a 12-month period, 74% of pediatricians report encountering a parent who refused or delayed one or more vaccines.”[1]

In a letter to physicians, the AAP urged them to record vaccine refusals using a special document:

“The use of this or a similar form in concert with direct and non-condescending discussion can demonstrate the importance you place on appropriate immunizations, focuses parents’ attention on the unnecessary risk for which they are accepting responsibility, and may in some instances induce a wavering parent to accept your recommendations.”

If you are still deciding about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, opting for a delayed vaccination schedule, or declining specific vaccines, your child’s health care provider may use this form in combination with your uncertainty to pressure you to vaccinate your child.

The form includes an admonition stating that the outcome of not vaccinating might include contracting:

“certain types of cancer, pneumonia, illness requiring hospitalization, death, brain damage, paralysis, meningitis, seizures, and deafness; other severe and permanent effects from these vaccine-preventable diseases are possible as well.”

These words may sound scary to parents who are newly researching the truth about vaccines, but informed parents know that adverse reactions to vaccines are much more likely to occur than contracting the diseases themselves.

The Refusal to Vaccinate Form May Be Used To Take Your Child Away From You

The suggested form provided to healthcare providers by the AAP, which you may be asked to read and sign, includes the following statements:

“I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others with whom my child might come into contact.”

Some parents and vaccine safety advocates have suggested child protective services or a parent in a custody battle may use this “admission” against the signing parent to remove a child from their care.

In a report published in Pediatrics, the AAP outlines how healthcare providers should respond when parents decline vaccinations for their children, stating that there are circumstances which would justify involving “the appropriate child protective services agency because of the concern about medical neglect.” [2]

The Refusal to Vaccinate Form May Be Used to Require Medical Treatment

The form also states:

“I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This language suggests that your child may be treated medically against your wishes because you did not accept certain vaccines.

How to Respond to Your Child’s Health Care Provider When They Tell You To Sign the Refusal to Vaccinate Form

If your child’s doctor or nurse presents this form to you, you may simply remind them that you are not obligated to sign this form. Vaccine exemptions are available in all fifty states, and you have the right to use these exemptions to refuse vaccines without signing the “refusal to vaccinate” form. [3]

Patricia Finn, a national vaccine injury and exemption attorney located in New York City, says it is probably best to refuse to sign the form.  However, if your refusal to sign stands between you and an exemption, or you and your pediatrician, and you have a valid legal basis for an exemption to vaccinations, then you probably should sign the form because it is not a legally enforceable agreement against you. 

According to Finn, signing a refusal form is not a waiver to rights to refuse vaccines, which are protected under statute and the United States Constitution.  Simply stated, your rights to refuse vaccines would not be waived by the refusal form.  It also would be unenforceable because the form would most likely have been signed under duress.

Another suggestion is to modify the form.  You can cross out what you disagree with, initial it, and sign the form. 

The rights of vaccine refusers were set out by the Supreme Court in the 1905 landmark vaccine-refusal case, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.  Over one hundred years ago, the Justices of the Court recognized the potential for unnecessary vaccination mandates as being “a plain and palpable invasion of fundamental liberties,” like the new CDC refusal form you must sign to exercise your rights to refuse. 

If you are faced with having to sign the form, remember the Supreme Court held in Jacobsonin 1905 that only one vaccine was allowable, and only in an extreme circumstance in which a grave danger existed that “imperils society.” The Supreme Court further held that vaccinations to be mandated must be necessary, proportional, non-discriminatory and harm avoidant, which today’s school required vaccines are not.  If you are presented with a refusal form from your child’s school or doctor, it would be wise to first consult with an attorney to obtain legal advice about how to proceed.

If you are still uncomfortable discussing vaccines with your child’s health care provider, you may wish to read 9 Ways to Boost Your Confidence When Your Doctor Pressures to Vaccinate.


These refusal to vaccinate forms were created to increase vaccination rates, scare parents, and potentially take children away from parents who decline vaccines or mandate medical treatment. Parents should refuse to sign these forms.

Has your child’s health care provider asked you to sign a refusal to vaccinate form? How did you respond? Please share your experiences in the comments section below. You can help other parents by sharing this article on social media.

Copyright Information: This article was reprinted with permission from Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

If just a handful of our 600,000 monthly readers donated one dollar, I could easily crush my modest yearly fundraising goal of $10,000 by January 31 2018. If you value the information on this site and have the means, please consider making a donation below. Your support will help us expand, keep ads off the site and buy out any remaining advertising contracts we have with vendors. No contribution is too small and will undoubtedly go towards the many expenses this site incurs. If would like to learn more about our mission, please visit our manifesto here.

Thank you so much for your support,
Thomas Dishaw Editor @ Gov’t Slaves

Source Article from