So, should we trust them NOW!

News Story: Swine Flu Cases Overestimated? – CBS News:

After reading this story it makes me feel even more worried about ObamaCare. Sure you may say well those are two different issues, test for a flu and ObamaCare is not the same thing…

I would have to say your wrong and brainwashed. Your brainwashed because if the CDC is willing to allow statistics out that are completely wrong and have no facts to support them, what will ObamaCare do in the future? The CDC has been pushing the vaccination so hard because of the huge infection rate that now according to CBS News is extremely wrong.

Why would they push false data that can not be proved? 

Well let’s see here… If they scare everyone into thinking the Swine Flu shot is going to save everyone’s lives and then can turn to the stats that show a low number of deaths, they convince everyone the government was right. So by showing high numbers instead of actual real numbers they can say, “Look, we were right! The shot stopped the flu from spreading further!” They could show record numbers of deaths before the shot was released and  record numbers in the drop after the shot was released.

So yes I believe this was just a part of the scare tactics to get people to want the ObamaCare socialized health care. It was used to make people think the swine flu was ten time worst than it actually was to scare people to look towards the government to come to the rescue. A rescue that was never really needed. My guess is that the CDC saw that the numbers were going to be low so that had to stop testing to ensure the estimates would remain high and the fear of the swine flu would be high.  

What about the Constitution?

News Story: Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard ’round the world:

So if this Massachusetts bill passes, forget that the Constitution as a number of amendments out of the first ten, yes the Bill of Rights, that says the federal and state governments can not hold people without Due Process of the law, arrest without cause, enter a person’s house without a warrant and so on.

Let break this down by amendments…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So in the first amendment this bill would break the free of religion as not every religion believes in medical treatment. So if you are one of the many that from a religious background do not believe in receiving advanced medical treatment or medical treatment in general, you going to be locked up and fined until you conform into a good child of the state.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, under the forth amendment you are protected from forced entry by any governmental agent from searching, entering, or seizure of your house, person, papers, and effects. So how on earth do the great lawmaker figure they can create a law that allows forced quarantine and vaccination of any person in any state? Oh sure they will say they have probably cause due to the health of the community surrounding the person. But lets be honest here, when our Constitution was created the idea of a vaccination was not even invented yet and if it were they would have placed that in the amendment also.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oh no not the Due Process Amendment!! Yep, the fifth amendment is the location of the strongest reasons for the bill to be ruled un-Constitutional. So are we going to start to see false grand juries opening up to indict people who refuse to the bill? That would be the only way for the bill to be enforced. Without a false or I will say un-American grand jury this bill would never legally be allowed to imprison or force quarantine or vaccinate any person in these United States.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The sixth amendment is where they must provide for a speed and public trial. If I were one of those that were arrested and brought to trail I would bet your bottom dollar that I would have each and every lawmaker that created this bill be a witness. I would do this for two reasons… 1. They created the law and I would want to have them answer questions as to the medical knowledge that lead them to create the bill. 2. Ensure that if they refuse to be on the witness stand because they were that freaking afraid of the H1N1 virus that I would have to be let go do to an unfair trial that did not allow me to confront the witnesses that placed me in jail.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The eighth amendment is the last one that would be broken if this bill became law. I believe this to be true doe to the one fact that they would be allowed to hold a person in excess of bail and with excessive fines for their form of the pursuit of happiness.

So, who the hell are these Massachusetts’ law makers that think they should be allowed to break your Constitutional Rights and not even bat an eye?