The Right to Dissent is Being Threatened

America is the greatest country on earth not because of its economy, technology, or industries; America is the greatest because of certain founding principles, recognized by America’s founders.

On the United States’ Constitution, America’s founders recognized the following:

“…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [1]

These values and beliefs were adopted from the Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215 by various baron in England to stop King John from abusing his power. The document was an agreement between the king and his subjects that the king would govern England justly per the customs of feudal law [2].

Thus, the United States’ Constitution acknowledged every American had certain inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, that cannot be taken away, meaning the same rights an American President possessed, American citizens were also given.

Moreover, the Founders offered further clarification of these God-given rights in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment states the following:

“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." [3]

These God-given rights are the backbone of individual freedom in the United States and offer a well-distinguished balance between government authoritarianism and personal choice, discovery, and liberty.

As America has grown and developed, these rights and truths have been continuously acknowledged. For example, after World War II, these natural, God-given rights were defined internationally as human rights. In 1948, the United Nations drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stems from America’s founding beliefs:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person;" and

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood;" and

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks;" and

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance;" and

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [4]

These are among the many, globally-recognized human rights that protect individuals and minorities from discrimination and the authoritarian, totalitarian, and draconian government Thomas Jefferson warned Americans about during his presidency:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” [5]

America’s founders, like Thomas Jefferson, recognized there is no smaller minority than the individual, regardless of race, ethnic background, or social class, and the founders recognized the abusive power the majority class typically wields upon the minority.

Benjamin Franklin’s Warnings; America is NOT a Democracy

When the founders were deliberating on the exact writings of the Constitution in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, anxious citizens gathered outside the hall, waiting to learn what has been produced behind the closed doors.

When Benjamin Franklin exited the hall, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” During that time, citizens were considering having a founder, like George Washington, as a king. However, without hesitation, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it” [6].

America was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. A Constitutional Republic has a document, the Constitution, that protects the rights of individual citizens from an overreaching government and overreaching social classes, e.g., the wealthy elite, the will of the majority.

Contrary, a Democracy does not offer the protection of a Constitution and allows a government to be run by the will and beliefs of the majority. In a Democratic government, if 51% of citizens vote to have someone executed, it would be fully allowable because that induvial could have their rights stripped by the majority.

However, in a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution cannot be changed simply through a mere majority effort, making the rights of individual citizens hard-coded into law and recognized as being endowed by God.

In fact, America’s founders were stout opposers of the whole idea of a Democracy and warned of its dangers:

Alexander Hamilton: “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments… If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.” [7] [8]

Thomas Jefferson: “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” [9]

James Madison: Democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” [10]

John Adams: Democracy “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” [11]

Illustrations of how America’s founders prevented a Democracy from being formed can be seen throughout the country because America is anti-Democratic by design, and these safeguards are just as vital today as they were in 1776.

For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency don’t only have to have the support of the population-heavy coasts but need broad support from throughout the country. The function of the Electoral College is to acknowledge and respect the independence of states within the federal system.

Further, each state is equally recognized in the Senate, irrespective of size, population, economic contribution, or prestige. However, this effect was considerably dampened by the 17th Amendment in 1913, which allowed senators to be selected by a majority vote of the state’s population, rather than being chosen by individual state legislatures [12].

Finally, America’s Supreme Court is perhaps the least democratic institution in the country because its members are given lifetime appointments by a president that is elected through the Electoral College. The justices are also called to examine presented cases without personal biases under current law.

The Republican President Abraham Lincoln even acknowledged present forces that were attempting to degrade the power and authority of the Constitution and institute a more democratic system in his 1856 speech:

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.” [13]

Since America is a Constitutional Republic, American’s have unfathomable power that cannot be conceptualized or fully explained.

Founding father Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” The government is there to be for the people and by the people. The government should not be more powerful than the people, but instead, the government should fear the people and respect them.

A Weakened Constitution Through Political Polarization

However, Americans are no longer as informed as they once were. Political correctness, corporate oppression and censorship, educational indoctrination, media influence, and governmental corruption have eroded many of these once, well-acknowledged truths.

Pew research from 2017 has depicted the illustrates the current social divide in today’s political climate [14]. Regardless of political opinion, data showed both parties had been polarized.

Although polarization has occurred in both parties, this data illustrates the Democratic party has shifted leftward many times more than the Republican party has shifted rightward.

It is tough to pinpoint a single cause; however, the lack of civics education can be easily debated to have played a predominant role. Americans are no longer as informed on the founding history of this country, the Founders’ intentions, the rights endowed by the Constitution, and the purpose of a Constitutional Republic.

Just as Abraham Lincoln warned democrats not to mess with the constitution in 1856, those warnings still heed consideration today.

Right to Dissent and Its Destruction

One of the lesser-known, however still relevant, God-given rights is the right to dissent, or disagree. This legal right is a hallmark of American freedom that is not recognized in other countries. Countries where the federal-level government can silence those who disagree to not offer these rights, such as far-left, communist, and socialist counties including North Korea and Venezuela [15] [16] [17].

Examples of governments limiting citizens’ right to dissent include various European countries and Canada, where citizens have been arrested for voicing their disagreements in the name of intolerance [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24].

Americans still have this right because it is viewed as a God-given right that cannot be taken away by a governmental institution. However, a growing part of the democrat, liberal party, dubbed leftist, is actively pushing to erase this right and ban speech from individuals they consider offensive. This is powerfully illustrated by the blanket and ill-defined term hate speech.

Moreover, large organizations in the United States have taken it upon themselves to ban hate speech or offensive language. However, because these large tech companies are left-leaning, this ideology primarily targets conservatives [25].

Free speech and the right to dissent is being threatened. Americans have, for now, the freedom to publicly debate government policy, law, and ethics in public forums. Minority groups in America have the right to dissent with the majority without fear of intimidation or punishment [26] [27].

These unprecedented attacks on free speech and the right to dissent are being instigated by a new type of American class: those with academic titles, wealth, and political influence that is tightly linked with today’s corporatized government that seeks the power to control the actions and expressions of citizens’ bodies [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].

Right of Bodily Integrity

It can be debated the right to autonomy and protection bodily integrity is one of the most vital God-given rights. This right is rooted deep into an individual’s personal beliefs and liberty [39] [40]. Therefore, if an individual cannot voluntarily determine where and when they are willing to risk their life or the life of their child, their inalienable right to life, liberty, and bodily integrity has been stripped. In other words, if a government can determine when and where to risk a citizen’s life, regardless of reason, liberty has been removed.

Despite the belief that every liability-free vaccine product produced by pharmaceutical companies is safe, or if a Federal vaccine policy is well-rooted in logic and science, or that mandatory vaccination and medical procedures without informed consent are justified and moral, the recent ostracization of those who dissent to such beliefs should heed a great warning.

Societal Ejection of Those Who Dissent

The enormous, collaborative effort to shun those who dissent to mandatory, nonconsensual medical procedures and the attempt to delegitimize free speech about vaccination unless it conforms to governmental policy has allowed corporate-owned media outlets to use yellow journalism techniques to legitimize the stripping of civil liberties from public health laws.

These are the same liberties that are God-given and were recognized as infinitely existent by America’s founders.

In today’s climate, any parent, doctor, research scientist, journalist, celebrity, politician, philanthropist, or non-governmental organization that simply asks questions concerning the science behind vaccines or challenges the legal ethics requiring the mandatory use of a liability-free pharmaceutical product that can harm or fail to work is immediately discredited, ostracized, labeled an anti-vaxxer, publicly defamed, humiliated, discredited, and relentlessly targeted for personal and professional ruin [49-63].

However, when the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100% for a child who has an adverse reaction, and the parents describe what has happened, journalists gaslight them.

It is a shameful display of ignorance and prejudice against biologically vulnerable children and their parents who have been compelled to bear the risks of vaccination for society unequally. Moreover, these parents are being demonized for advocating for safer vaccines and scientifically informed and humane public health policies that acknowledge and surrender to individual liberties, all because they are exercising their right of dissent and bodily integrity [64] [65] [66] [67]. Further, the media class is behooved to retaliate against the discrimination and erosion of these liberties and freedoms, not actively condone it.

Fiction Over Facts

Even merely stating declarative facts will get someone discredited and labeled as an anti-vaxxer.

For example, in 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Injury Act and noted that vaccines could injure and kill [68].

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted in a 2010 ruling that vaccines have “unavoidable, adverse side effects” [69].

Because adverse side effects are “unavoidable,” the multibillion-dollar vaccine industry cannot be held accountable in a court of law for failing to improve the safety of vaccine products.

Today, anyone who states these facts and questions the safety of vaccinations is treated like a dangerous criminal. Even well-referenced, factual information discussing the risks of immunization is being labeled as misinformation so that it can be censored [70].

Newsweek published an article entitled “The Anti Vaxxer Movement is Growing – We Need to Restore Faith in Science.” The article was written by Dr. Barbara Rath, who has a rather extensive academic background. Rath is a co-founder and chair of a pro-vaccine think tank, The Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative. Yet, her placement on a vaccine safety think tank and her ability to remarkably overlook the indicated health risks of vaccinations are extraordinarily contradictory.

Newsweek’s propaganda piece begins with the following sentences: “The anti-vaxx movement has been gaining momentum in countries across the globe. In a world of post truth politics, more and more parents are buying into the belief that vaccines come with health risks” [71].

Immediately, the article begins by slurring anyone who acknowledges the health risks of vaccines by calling them an anti-vaxxer.

The second sentence continues by stating, “… more and more parents are buying into the belief that vaccines come with health risks,” which implies that there are no health risks that come with being vaccinated. If Rath would read Merck’s product insert for its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, she might be enlightened.

The insert includes the following warnings:

Possible adverse reactions include: Fever, syncope (fainting), headache, dizziness, vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to severe problems, including aneurysms), pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself), diarrhea, vomiting, parotitis (inflammation of the parotid glands), nausea, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia (a disorder in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets, which help a blood clot), anaphylaxis ( a life-threatening allergic reaction that causes cardiac and respiratory arrest), arthritis (joint inflammation), arthralgia (joint pain), myalgia (muscle pain), encephalitis (swelling of the brain, which can cause permanent brain damage or death), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune syndrome in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death), febrile seizures (convulsions brought on by fever), afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever, which may indicate epilepsy), pneumonia, measles-like rash, or “death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes.” [72]

Nevertheless, those who advocate for informed consent protections in vaccine laws are called anti-vaxxer¸ so they will be silenced and lose their right to free speech.

Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence, warned: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins” [73] [74].

People Doubt Vaccine Safety

When people’s feel that their rights have been stripped by unjust opposition and unjust laws and speak up, lawmakers often turn to censorship to silence those people’s concerns and force compliance.

An American’s freedom of dissent, speech, and thought is being jeopardized, precisely at the same time that American and European citizens are voicing their concerns about vaccine safety [75] [76].

Recent polls show only half of the people in Eastern Europe, and forty-five percent of Americans believe vaccines are safe [76] [77]. Of the forty-five percent of Americans that doubt the full safety of vaccines, sixteen percent were influenced by online information, sixteen percent were affected on prior knowledge of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, and twelve percent were influenced by information from medical experts [77].

Officials Advocate for Speech Censorship on the Internet

This year, Democratic representatives from California and New Jersey sent letters to CEO’s of large technology companies, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon, that “there is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases,” and that “the dissemination of unfounded and debunked theories about the dangers of vaccination a great risk to public health” [78] [79] [80]. The social media platforms were challenged to remove vaccine misinformation and replace it with medically accurate information.

The Push for New Regulation

In February 2019, Americans witnessed government health officials testifying that vaccines do not cause brain inflammation [81] [82].

However, this is completely false; mercury and aluminum, two compounds in vaccines, have been linked with a series of devastating disorders called the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants or ASIA syndrome. Published, peer-reviewed studies have acknowledged and studied ASIA syndrome [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88].

Moreover, thousands of parents traveled to those hearings, and not one individual was allowed to testify and offer a different perspective [89] [90].

The Food and Drug Administration commissioner even threatened state legislators that if they did not remove vaccine exemptions, the Federal government would step in and “mandate certain rules about what is and isn't permissible when it comes to allowing people to have vaccine exemptions” [91] [92] [93].

After thousands of concerned Americans showed up at these hearings in multiple states, by June, only Washington, Maine, and New York had eliminated either religious or conscious belief exemptions, or both [94] [95] [96] [97].

The New York bill eliminated religious exemptions. However, the bill was pushed through the Assembly and Senate in one day with no public hearings [98] [99] [100]. This legislative coup completely cut citizens out of the law-making process [101] [102]. New York’s far-left leaning Governor, Andrew Cuomo, declared, “I am incredibly proud that science has won with the passage of this bill. We should be taking medical advice from medical professionals, not strangers on the internet spreading pseudo-science misinformation” [103].

Many lobbyists argued that no dominant religion has a tenet opposing vaccination. However, that is given since governments were not mandating vaccine products until long after the world’s major religions were founded. Moreover, the United States Constitution prohibits the American government forcing citizens that hold sincere spiritual or religious beliefs to identify with organized religion or be a member of a particular church to receive equal protection under the law [104].

The justification for violating religious liberty in New York was primarily based on more than 1,000 measles cases reported in twenty-eight states this year, with 800 cases in several New York neighborhoods, though there have been no reported measles deaths or injuries. About seventy-five percent of the measles cases have occurred in orthodox Jewish communities that hold sincere beliefs against the use of vaccines.

Vaccines Are Not as Effective as People Think

Government health officials and the mainstream media blame unvaccinated children as the sole cause of the measles outbreaks. However, there is evidence that MMR vaccine failures and waning immunity in vaccinated adults have equally contributed to the outbreaks [105] [106] [107] [108].

For example, because the MMR vaccine contains a live measles virus, recently vaccinated individuals could transmit measles [107]. Further, vaccines are not as effective as they are made out to be because there have been outbreaks in highly vaccinated and completely vaccinated populations [106].

When researchers investigated the 2015-2016 mumps outbreak at the University of Iowa, of the 301 cases studied, 7% has a severe reaction to the disease, but researchers found all were fully immunized against mumps with two doses of the MMR vaccine [109].

In additional circumstances, researchers noted outbreaks could occur in immunized populations:

  • Location: Corpus Christi, Texas: “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced…We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” [110]
  • Location: The State of Montana: “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures," an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana, and since school records acknowledged 98.7% of students were vaccinated, researchers concluded: "This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy." [111]
  • Location: The State of Colorado: “early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity ... due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. The researchers concluded: "...measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations." [112]
  • Location: Quebec, Canada: according to an article published in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was "largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage," but following an extensive review, the researchers concluded, "Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.” [113]
  • Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: “250 measles suspected cases were studied” … “Vaccination status was known for 127 studied cases and 76.4% of them had received measles vaccine before their first birthday.” [114]
  • Location: Cape Town, South Africa: Researchers examined measles outbreaks in Cape Town and noted: “Immunisation [sic] coverage (at least one dose of any measles vaccine) was 91% and vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 79% (95% CI 55-90); it was highest for monovalent measles (100%) and lowest for measles-mumps-rubella (74%). The epidemiology of measles in Cape Town has thus changed as evinced in this epidemic, with an increase in the number of cases occurring in older, previously vaccinated children. The possible reasons for this include both primary and secondary vaccine failure.” [115]


This published research indicated vaccinations are not as effective as they are believed. However, even citing this research will have an individual criticized, ostracized, and labeled as an anti-vaxxer.

People Want Vaccines to Work

America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, freedoms that are granted to humankind by God and cannot be taken away. Two of those freedoms are the right to dissent and the right to informed medical consent.

People want vaccines to work without any possible adverse effects, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers alike. However, that is not possible; vaccines have risk, and anyone who says otherwise is ill-informed.

It is imperative individuals stay educated on the risks of vaccines and oppose legislation that eradicates civil rights, especially as the Democrat party continues to shift further to the left and strip rights from American citizens.

Benjamin Franklin stated, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” [116], and this is happening today.