I don’t know if this is an “Update” to this 2002 posting or a report of something that may have morphed out of this issue. Either way, I have a strong suspicion that some “Czar” in Washington DC may have had a lot to do with it, and we may expect to see similar if not identical legislation being introduced in all 57 States of the Obammanation.
We recently had a report from:
http://www.naturalnews.com
“Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory “decontaminations”
By Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor;
http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html
Regarding a bill before the Massachusetts State Legislature providing for warantless searches and seizures of any property suspected by a government agent of being “infected” or otherwise a danger to public health. I suppose a political hack could consider firearms posession a “danger to public health”, don’t you suppose?
At first I was a little dubious about this alarm, until another contact did some more research and came up with the text of the actual bill on the MA Legislative web site:
> Here is the link to the actual bill.
> http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02028.htm
As of 1450 hrs. Aug. 30 these were still on line - just to be on the safe side though I saved the *.pdf file to disk in case it vanishes from the internet, as things like this have a way of doing lately.
> http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf
For some odd reason I suspect that our guns, ammunition, and Bibles will all be found to be terribly “contaminated” and will just have to be seized and destroyed.
I also would expect that significant contributors to certain political parties or members of select labor Unions, politically favored religions, or “Community Organizing” groups would be miraculously spared any such “infection” or need any such “decontamination”.
“Decontamination”, by the way, would likely involve killing all of your pets and livestock, and the burning of your home with all of your possessions - after anything of value could be “seized as evidence” of course.
Now where would I get a silly notion like that, do you suppose???
> It does state that those that participate in the destruction can not be sued - that includes the government authority, the workers and any helpers.
(Why am I thinking “ACORN” and “SEIU” “Helpers” here?)
> If you refuse to cooperate by allowing them onto your property they can throw you in jail up to 6 months and fine you $1000. If they decide you have to be quarantined and you refuse it is a $1000 fine per day. It supersedes the authority given by a bill in 1950. The amendment at the bottom provides for that override, even though the first paragraph says it does not override the bill from 1950. It gives the governor’s the authority to enact this bill. It gives the governor pretty much authority to do anything he feels like, in the name of public health.
> He does not even have to prove there is a public heath threat. He can even kill a person if he decides that they are a threat to public health.
> The governor can declare an emergency and he has 90 days to do what he wants and then he can let it expire or declare a other emergency for 90 more days which can go on forever as long as he wants.
> So I would say this is true and is alarming. do not know if it has passed or not. It is listed under Senate bill 2028 in this year’s senate session.
Segment of the Bill’s actual text:
(Parenthetic commentary mine)
(You might need a Lawyer to comprehend it fully - but see if it doesn’t stand your hair on end just the way is is?):
> SECTION 13. Said chapter 111, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out section 95 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
>
> Section 95. (a) Whenever the commissioner, or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction, determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a disease or condition dangerous to the public health exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of such a disease or condition, and that certain measures are necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to public health, the commissioner or local public health authority may issue an order. The order may be a verbal order in exigent circumstances, and in such case it shall be followed by a written order as soon as reasonably possible. The written order shall specify the reasons for it, and may include, but is not limited to:
>
> (1) requiring the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
> (2) requiring the owner or occupier of premises to close the premises or a specific part of the premises, and allowing reopening of the premises when the danger has ended;
> (3) requiring the placarding of premises to give notice of an order requiring the closing of the premises;
> (4) requiring the cleaning or disinfection, or both, of the premises or the thing specified in the order;
> (5) requiring the destruction of the matter or thing specified in the order.
>
> The written order shall be delivered personally to the person to whom it is directed, but if that is not possible, it shall be delivered in a manner that is reasonably calculated to notify such person of it.
> If a person does not comply with the order, and if the commissioner or the local public health authority determines that non-compliance poses a serious danger to public health, upon request or issuance of an order by the commissioner or local public health authority, an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated such an order and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order.
> If a person does not comply with the order within the time specified in the order, but the non-compliance does not pose a serious danger to public health, the commissioner or the local public health authority may apply to a judge of the superior court for an order requiring the person to comply with the order within the time specified in the order of the court; and to take whatever other action the court considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the public health. The law enforcement authorities of the city or town where the person is present shall enforce the court order.
> Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which non-compliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority,(Political Hacks) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both. It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for this offense that the commissioner or the local public health authority erroneously determined that non-compliance would pose a serious danger to public health, if the commissioner or local public health authority was acting in good faith under color of official authority.
(Said risk or “danger” of the vaccine to be determined by another political hack, of course.)
> A person who knowingly violates any other order issued under this subsection may be subject to a civil fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues. Any fine collected for any violation of this section shall be credited fifty percent to the courts and fifty percent to the health care safety net trust fund.
> The commissioner or the local public health authority may recover expenses incurred in enforcing the order from the person to whom the order was directed, by action in the superior court.
>
> (b) Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority:
>
> (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; (In the opinion of another political hack)
and
> (2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.
> An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined
(For how long? Until they are dead?)
pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty...
(”Infected until proven healthy”?)
... whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.
********************* etc. ***********
Needless to say, The potential for political opportunism and public exploitation and abuse here is formidable!
This is nothing more IMHO than raw tyranny dressed up in a white lab coat... and brandishing a syringe in one hand and a pistol in the other.
“We’re from the government, and we’re here to HELP you!”