Category: Sociopolitical

Idaho Leads the Nation with Landmark Medical Freedom Legislation

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Ketchum, Idaho — April 6, 2025, Idaho has made history as the first state in the nation to enshrine sweeping protections for personal medical autonomy into law. With the passage of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, the state has taken a bold stand to ensure that no Idahoan will ever again be compelled to undergo unwanted medical interventions as a condition of employment, education, or daily life.

This transformative legislation, written by Leslie Manookian, president and founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), prohibits schools, daycares, businesses, and state entities from denying access, services, or opportunities based on an individual’s medical choices. The bill states:

“A business entity doing business in the state of Idaho shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person because that person has or has not received a coronavirus vaccination or used a medical intervention.”

These protections apply across both the public and private sectors, safeguarding Idahoans’ rights in the workplace, educational settings, and beyond.

For Manookian, the law’s passage represents the fulfillment of a long-held vision. “This is a dream realized,” said Manookian. “Medical freedom is a basic and fundamental human right, and the Idaho Medical Freedom Act sets a powerful precedent not only for our state but for the entire country.”

HFDF was founded with the mission to restore and preserve health freedom, and the successful enactment of this bill marks a significant milestone in that journey.

In response to the overreach experienced during the Covid era, the Idaho Medical Freedom Act reaffirms the right of individuals to make informed medical decisions—free from coercion, discrimination, or fear of exclusion.

Idaho has spoken clearly: medical freedom is not negotiable. And with this landmark legislation, the Gem State now lights the way for the rest of the nation to follow.

Testimony of Leslie Manookian on the Idaho Medical Freedom Act – Senate State Affairs Committee

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

February 5, 2025

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:

My name is Leslie Manookian. Although I am the founder of a nationally recognized nonprofit, I am here in my personal capacity as a long-time resident of Idaho. My family moved here in 1976 when I was twelve and I’ve called Idaho home ever since. Growing up, I could have never imagined that Idaho would become a place that locked its people down, forced citizens to cover their faces, stand on floor markers 6 feet apart, or produce proof of vaccination in order to enter a venue or business, but that is exactly what happened. Idahoans lost their jobs, suffered isolation and mental health issues, were denied participation in normal society, and dozens even died – all on the basis of empty promises, if not outright dishonesty. These are the reasons I am here today, because I want Idaho to lead the nation in ensuring that such intrusive and authoritarian infringements never happen again and in recognizing that no right is more fundamental than the right to choose what medical interventions we accept.

This right, medical freedom, is foundational to our nation, our Constitution, and our shared human dignity. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act, sponsored by Senator Dan Foreman, would restore this ethical principle in Idaho and ensure that Idaho stands as a beacon of liberty in declaring that no individual will be coerced into receiving a medical intervention against their will, with the exception of those organizations which receive CMS funds. It ensures that employment, education, entertainment, and public participation remain accessible to all, regardless of their medical choices.

The right to bodily autonomy is enshrined in the very fabric of the American legal system. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the American ideal that individuals have the right to make deeply personal medical decisions without interference or coercion.

The Constitutional Foundation of Medical Freedom

The principle of bodily autonomy is so deeply embedded in American jurisprudence that even forced medical procedures in the name of law enforcement have been struck down as unconstitutional. In Rochin v. California (1952), the Court ruled that forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach to retrieve evidence was a violation of bodily integrity.

In Griswold vs. Connecticut(1965), the Supreme Court ruled that every American enjoys a zone of privacy around them into which the state may not intrude.

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health(1990), the Court held that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.” This ruling reaffirmed that the right to refuse medical intervention is not a privilege—it is a fundamental right.  

In Washington vs. Harper 1990, the Court ruled that even prisoners have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical interventions unless they pose a threat to themselves or others due to their mental state.

Finally, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Court reaffirmed the fundamental nature of deeply personal medical decisions, recognizing that autonomy over one’s body is an essential aspect of liberty.

The right to make one’s own medical decisions is not granted by the government. It is not a privilege subject to approval. It is a sacred, God-given, inalienable right, woven into the very fabric of our constitutional republic. And it is a right that has been consistently upheld by our Supreme Court. This bill is in no way radical, it is merely a codification of our basic human rights.

This right is as fundamental to a free and just society as are our cherished rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly. I would argue it is the most basic human right because absent the right to control what medical interventions we allow into and onto our bodies, what meaningful rights do we truly have? I care not about my speech if my body and the direction of my health do not belong to me.

Furthermore, if the government may not force a person to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of another, how then can we justify forcing individuals to accept medical interventions to participate in society?

The Dangers of Medical Coercion

When we allow medical coercion—whether by the government, employers, or businesses—we set a dangerous precedent and history has shown us that whenever bodily autonomy is sacrificed for the greater good, injustice follows. Just consider, for a moment, how those engaged in worship outdoors in northern Idaho during Covid were arrested. Or how the family whose newborn baby was kidnapped by hospital staff and CPS when the parents declined a hepatitis B shot in the first few days after birth, although hepatitis B is a disease for which only IV drug users and the sexually promiscuous are at risk.

Consider the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough” – all for the greater good of society, of course. That decision, later recognized as a moral stain on our society, serves as a grim reminder of what happens when government is given power over personal medical decisions.

It is a slippery slope when we allow even well-intentioned policies to infringe upon individual rights. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act ensures that such infringements will not happen in our great state. It ensures that no business, school, or government entity may force an individual to choose between a medical intervention and their livelihood, education, or access to public life.

What This Bill Protects

Under this act, no individual may be:

  • Denied employment or forced to undergo a medical intervention as a condition of employment, except in very limited circumstances involving federally funded entities.
  • Excluded from schools or universities for their personal and private medical decisions.
  • Refused entry into public buildings or services due to their medical choices.
  • Discriminated against based on their medical choices.

Addressing the Public Health Argument

Some may argue that public health concerns justify medical mandates. But our freedom is not conditional. Our Constitution does not grant rights that are subject to the whims of fear or political pressure. It guarantees them outright. The Covid era serves as a stark reminder of what happens when we sacrifice our principles due to fear, pressure, or money.

Public health should be restricted to public concerns such as controlling waste in our public spaces or effluent from businesses. The intrusion of public health into our intimate private health matters must never be tolerated again and was never envisioned when public health laws were originally enacted.

Nowhere in state or federal law do we find the power or authority to dictate personal medical choices, but during recent years, the scope of public health has been increasingly and alarmingly construed to include private health. This must be stopped.

The Role of Informed Consent

At the heart of medical freedom, is the ethical principle of informed consent—a pillar of modern medical ethics. It has been universally acknowledged that every individual has the right to evaluate the risks and benefits prior to any medical intervention and to make a voluntary decision which means free of any type of coercion.

The Nuremberg Code, established after the horrors of forced medical experimentation under the Nazis wisely and resolutely determined that voluntary consent is “absolutely essential” in medical decision-making. This principle is echoed in international law and treaties such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the US Belmont Report, and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in more recent decades.

When a person is forced to undergo a medical intervention under threat of losing their job, education, or public services, that is not consent—it is coercion and it does not belong in a free or just society.

My dear family friend, Doug Cameron, is here today. Doug was a vital and fit man until he was catastrophically injured and paralyzed by the Covid shot which his employer pushed on him due to his employer’s fear. That employer fired Doug after Doug was disabled by the shot as he was no longer able to do his job as well. Doug’s employer has since passed away but Doug will have to live the rest of his life in a wheelchair for a medical intervention he categorically did not want.

This must never be allowed to happen again.

Time to Codify Medical Freedom

I urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee to vote yes on S-1023. Medical freedom should not be a partisan issue. This is not about whether you personally choose to accept or decline a medical intervention. This is about the fundamental right of every individual to make that decision for themselves. Idaho already banned Covid shot mandates in the Coronavirus stop act, why should we treat any other medical intervention any different?

If we fail to defend this principle now, what comes next? Will someone decide we need to be chipped to participate in society? Will an employer require us to alter our DNA to enhance our productivity? Will we be barred from society if we don’t take some pill or injection? If we accept the idea that bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for the “greater good,” where do we draw the line?

I ask you to consider: Do we want to live in a society where other people, entities, or organizations have the power to dictate what medical interventions we receive or do we want to live in a society where individual choice is not just respected but held sacred, and where medical freedom is upheld as an inviolable human right?

I believe in the latter. I believe in freedom. And I believe that this bill is necessary to protect that freedom.

I urge you all to support the Idaho Medical Freedom Act—because Idaho rejects coercion. Because we recognize that no one—no employer, no business, no government—has the right to override the personal medical decisions of an individual or to condition our lives on them. Because no one else knows our medical background or health needs. And because no one else has to live with the consequences of our medical choices.

Let us stand for liberty. Let us stand for bodily autonomy. And let us ensure that Idaho remains a state where medical freedom is not negotiable—because in a free society, it is not a privilege, it is a human right. S-1023 will enshrine this most sacred and basic human right in law.

The Winds of Change

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Three decades ago, I took nearly every drug and vaccine that was recommended to me. It never occurred to me that the pharmaceutical industry might be misleading me—or the public in general—or that my own health might be at risk.

That changed when I heard the CEO of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world explain that, in rare cases, his company’s new promising blockbuster drug had killed a few people during the Phase III clinical trials. He mentioned that the FDA would therefore require the company to place a “black box” warning on the packaging, cautioning doctors and patients about the drug’s potentially deadly side effects before it could be licensed.

Then, without hesitation, the executive looked me in the eyes and said words I will never forget: “We still think we can do $7 billion in peak sales.” He was referring to the revenue potential of the drug—despite knowing that it could take lives.

As shocking as this story might seem, this is, unfortunately, standard operating procedure for the pharmaceutical industry. Naïve and unsuspecting Americans are merely collateral damage in the industry’s relentless pursuit of ever-increasing profits.

According to Violation Tracker, the pharmaceutical industry has paid an astonishing $122 billion in penalties for fraud, false marketing, and pervasive misconduct. While this might seem punitive enough to encourage self-regulation, the truth is that $122 billion is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the industry’s colossal profits of $1.9 trillion between 2000 and 2018. This figure only includes the 35 largest drug manufacturers and excludes the past five years, when COVID-19 vaccines were globally promoted under questionable pretenses.

When it comes to vaccines, this industry—so deeply rooted in questionable practices—benefits from a liability shield granted by Congress in 1986. While American health authorities assure us that vaccines are unequivocally safe, the vaccine industry itself does not stand behind its products. It bears virtually no legal or financial liability for the injuries and deaths its vaccines might cause.

Educated and informed Americans understand that our healthcare system is hopelessly corrupt and broken. That’s why the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) exists: to protect our rights and hold bad actors accountable. HFDF envisions a country where healthcare prioritizes health, healing, and well-being. We understand that health does not come in a bottle, pill, or injection, and that our system needs a fundamental overhaul.

Reforming the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subsidiary agencies is a monumental task. We extend our best wishes to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as he assumes the role of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. perhaps knows better than anyone the playbooks of Big Pharma, Big Chemical, Big Agriculture, and others. We hope he can bring meaningful and much-needed change to Washington, D.C.

The winds of change are blowing, and we’re rooting for you, Bobby!

Policy Imperatives for Health Freedom

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Written By: Leslie Manookian | President | Health Freedom Defense Fund

As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the USA, we must first define what is meant by health freedom. A simple definition is: the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience, and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or something airborne.

In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience, it’s an imperative. In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs, or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed, and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors, and chemicals.

Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society which values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another. Moreover, government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever – Americans are merely chattel.

In order to create a society based on true health freedom, the following policy shifts should be implemented, as a first step. There are many more changes which should be implemented as well, but these proposals would address some of the most glaring, pernicious anti-liberty and anti-health aspects of our system as it exists today:

1. Ban all Medical Mandates:

The Declaration of Independence states, “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…”  Medical mandates are prime facie violations of our founding documents.

Health freedom demands prior voluntary informed consent before a medical treatment or intervention is administered. Medical mandates are thus, by definition, antithetical to voluntary consent and therefore must be prohibited in a free and moral society. No single individual in government knows the medical history of any American, knows what is best for Americans, or has to live with the repercussions of any choices made by Americans, thus, medical mandates are never justified in any circumstance.

2. Repeal the Bayh-Dole Act:

“The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, is a federal law enacted in 1980 that enables universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs within their organizations.”

Under this program, government scientists may receive up to $150,000 per year on their patents.

In theory, Bayh-Dole incentivizes bright scientists to seek employment at federal health agencies rather than entering more lucrative private industry by allowing these taxpayer-funded scientists and other individuals and entities to retain the patent rights to intellectual property developed during their taxpayer-funded research and development activities.

In practice, this Act forever realigned the interests of taxpayer-funded scientists away from the American people and toward their own interests and profits and the profits of the private industries with which they collaborate. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team at NIAID infamously owned half the Moderna Covid vaccine patent which incentivized the misguided covid era policies leading to a colossal violation of the rights of Americans demonstrating the perverse incentives created by Bayh-Dole and the necessity of repealing the act.

3. Repeal the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992:

“The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug review and approval process.”

In 2022 alone, the pharmaceutical industry paid $2.9 billion in user fees amounting to 46% of FDA’s entire budget including $1.4 billion or 66% for FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries and $197 million or 43% of the biologics (vaccines) program budget. As a direct consequence of PDUFA, the FDA has a vested interest aligned with the profits and success of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the health and wellbeing of the American people.

4. Repeal the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration.

“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

  • of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions
  • determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency
  • to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures

A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.”

The PREP Act desecrates the ethical principle of informed consent by protecting individuals from liability even when they expressly act contrary to patients’ wishes and instructions and must be repealed.

5. Repeal the Affordable Care Act:

The Affordable Care Act anchors Americans to the pharmaceutical and drug-based medical paradigm even though a majority of Americans used at least one form of “alternative” medicine in 2021 and spent $30.6 billion in out of pocket expenses for those holistic medicine services in 2023 according to Statista. Instead, implement a health savings program which permits Americans to access the health and medical modalities of their choice which in turn would foster more competition and reduce the exorbitant health care costs in the US by breaking the extant monopolies held by the medical and insurance industries.

6. Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA):

NCVIA shields vaccine makers and those who administer vaccines from liability (except for willful misconduct), creating a perverse incentive to industry to develop a never-ending stream of vaccines which are then mandated by the states and a perverse incentive to medical professionals to charge for and inject patients irrespective of the harm they may cause. Further, the NCVIA protects industry, medical professionals, and vaccine programs by creating a separate administrative federal court structure lacking due process and discovery, managed by “Special Masters” instead of judges, all in violation of the constitutionally protected right to due process. While NCVIA contains other provisions designed to protect American families and ensure the safety of the national vaccine supply, Congress is not conducting proper oversight and the promises made in 1986 at the time of the Act’s passage have not been upheld. As such, Americans who have been injured or killed by vaccines are left with astronomical medical bills and to fend for themselves.

7. Prohibit Private Donations to Government Entities:

Prohibit private individuals, foundations, corporations, contractors, any other person or entity from donating or otherwise giving money to any agency or entity of the federal government. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept money from private actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer thus skewing the interests of the agency in favor of these private actors and away from the American public. Gates has collaborated with FDA and the CDC Foundation takes money from the pharmaceutical industry whose products CDC is responsible for monitoring for safety.

8. Cooling-off Period for Senior Federal Employees:

Enact a 5-year cooling-off period before which agency leadership, deputies, and other key officials may depart federal agencies in order to enter the companies they regulate in the private sector.

9. Prevent Conflicts of Interest:

Eliminate conflict of interest waivers so that no person serving on a health agency committee, board, or other regulatory entity may have a conflict of interest. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is insufficient to ensure the agencies pursue the interests of the American people. Individuals with financial or ideological conflicts of interest should not serve as decision makers in any capacity.

10. Prohibit Government Grants to Nonprofits:

Prohibit government from allocating taxpayer dollars to nonprofit. Nonprofits exists to serve the public interests and should be funded directly by American citizens. If a nonprofit has a worthwhile mission, the public will gladly support it. Government exists to protect our rights and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers nor should it be using third parties to pursue policies outside the reach and review of the public.

11. Ban Water Fluoridation:

While water fluoridation programs are broad spread, they are not only dangerous from a health standpoint, they are forced medication in violation of the ethical principle of informed consent. Research comparing the health outcomes and IQs of communities that do and do not fluoridate their water supply reveal that children in the fluoridated water communities have reduced IQs and therefore inferior prospects in life. Other research has documented the health hazards of fluoride, an industrial waste product.

In addition, as fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, residents of those communities have no way to opt out and therefore are subjected to involuntary forced medication. No one should be forced to consume drugged water in order to maintain a biological necessity.

12. Ban Release of Genetically Modified Insects

Two tenets of good health are abundant exposure to sunshine and fresh air, however in some states, the state governments have collaborated with private business to release genetically modified mosquitoes into communities. While these mosquitoes are often designed to breed with one another and eliminate the “dangerous” species going forward, the health impacts of humans being bitten by these insects is not well understood. Nor should a person have to be risk being bitten by one of these creatures in order to venture outside. This amounts to a form of forced medication absent any form of consent and must be ended.

These recommendations should be understood as necessary first steps to begin correcting the disastrous health policy environment that exists in the United States today and to restore true health freedom in the US which would allow all Americans to decide what medical interventions to allow into or onto one’s body, which health and medical modalities to utilize in maintaining their health, and the ability to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or the air we breathe.

Update October 3, 2024: Policy Imperative 6. has been edited to note that the NCVIA shields medical professionals from liability as well as the vaccine industry.

Originally posted on HealthFreedomDefense.org.

What I Used to Believe

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

I used to believe that the root cause of all problems in the world stemmed from government not having enough money.

I used to believe that if I and all the other high earners just paid more in taxes – what I thought was our fair share, even though I already paid 50% of my earnings to government – the circumstances of our world would improve because government would have the funding it needed to put everything right.

I used to believe the only thing wrong in the world was George W. Bush and if we just got rid of him and elected a nice and decent person – a democrat – everything would change for the better.

I used to believe democrats were the good, kind, caring politicians and the virtuous members of society.

I used to believe republicans and conservatives were coldhearted, big corporation-backing, corrupt politicians and ignorant people.

I used to believe the two major American political parties stood for and pursued vastly different policies in service to what is best for the American people.

I used to believe newspapers, radio and TV news stations existed to report, in an unbiased fashion, the most important news of the day. 

I used to believe modern medicine was about human health.

I used to believe science was about truth and that the broad collection of medical/scientific associations, journals, and professionals pursued truth above all else for the benefit of humanity – not profit.

I used to believe vaccines were not only safe and effective but the greatest invention of mankind.

I used to believe that New York city, the Netherlands, and many island nations would be underwater by 2013 due to global warming.

I used to believe that government told the truth about global warming, climate change, vaccines, modern medicine, cancer treatments, pesticides, GMOs, wireless technology, EMFs, fluoride, autism, etc. and that government institutions were THE unalloyed source of trustworthy information.

I used to believe homeopathy, herbs, chiropractic, acupuncture, essential oils, midwifery, and other ancient healing modalities were unscientific quackery.

I used to believe the law was the law and did not depend on who occupied the White House or held the majority in Congress.

I used to believe judges were impartial, nonpartisan, wise researchers and interpreters of the law endeavoring to apply it in order to resolve disputes.

I used to believe judges were committed to the ideals which underpin our nation. I used to believe they were focused on defending the Constitution.

I used to believe strict gun laws would keep us safe and that guns are for criminals.

I used to believe in open borders because I didn’t think it was fair that I lived in a rich country while others, merely by virtue of their place of birth, were consigned to a life of deprivation.

I used to believe Americans all cherished the basic American ideals of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy and self-determination -basic freedoms – that underpin the fabric of our society.

I used to believe America was a force for good in the global arena and only intervened when exigencies demanded in order to aid countries and people in need.

I used to believe government was good.

I used to believe so many things, but thankfully I’m no longer so naïve.

Taxes

At some point I woke up or maybe grew up or perhaps got educated and realized that our problems are not fiscal, there is no amount of money that will satisfy government, and government is not the best vehicle to direct the flow of our resources, except in very limited circumstances and for very limited purposes.

To wit, the federal government gave tens of billions to the COVID-19 vaccine manufactures allegedly to address the crisis but the upshot was that government, media, and those vaccine makers colluded to rush a product to market, destroy the clinical trial data by unblinding the trials mere months into the trial, censor and denounce anyone who sounded the alarm or suggested a different approach, suppress therapeutic treatments, and reap extraordinary levels of profit. The federal government oversaw and directed the transfer of immense wealth to these corporations, while their putative life-saving injections likely resulted in hundreds of thousands of excess deaths and multiples more disabilities.

This government sponsored boondoggle not only gifted billions to private industry, it enabled the vaccine makers to profit without liability and profit they did.

Such an exercise is not about serving the public but lining the pockets of cronies.

I never considered that government, like any household, must live within its means or that by spending beyond our budget, government risked the wellbeing of everyone, as is the case today.

I didn’t understand that every dollar the government takes from us in taxes is a dollar out of the local economy which reduces the prospects for all.

Parties

When it came to politics, I used to quip that I was the only socialist on Wall Street and felt I was virtuous for paying a large amount in taxes. I thought I cared more about the poor, the underprivileged, minorities, immigrants and those from other countries than those mean and stingy conservatives.

I didn’t realize that conservatives and people of faith donate more time and money to help those in need than progressives.

If Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, how can this be?

Nor did I consider that private organizations, churches, and charities might be a better method of providing aid to the needy than the public sector.

But if the political parties truly represent vastly divergent agendas and the majority in Congress and occupant of the White House really matter, why have presidents of both parties in recent decades pursued virtually identical policies of globalism, corporatism, and war?

Bush dropped 70,000 bombs in 8 years, Obama dropped 100,000 in 8 years, and Trump dropped 72,000 in a mere 3 years – all on foreign countries largely populated by people of color.  Is this the change Obama spoke of?

Bush junior was roundly condemned as an isolationist with scant knowledge of international affairs. He proceeded to start war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was touted as a fiscal conservative committed to serving the Constitution but he ballooned the budget while bailing out those too big to fail and signed the anti-American Patriot Act and PREP Act condemning Americans to glaringly unconstitutional surveillance, violations of our basic rights, and gifting liability-free profits to corporate pals.

For his part, Obama promised openness but rarely met with the media. He promised change and transparency but was acknowledged as the most secretive president in US history.  He signed more Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda than any president in nearly 70 years.

While campaigning for President, he vowed to close Guantanamo Bay, exit Iraq and Afghanistan, and recognize the Armenian Genocide but did none of these things once in the Oval Office.

He repealed the 20-year moratorium on offshore drilling and the media barely noticed – an act that would have been unthinkable when Bush was in the White House.

He signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011 removing the writ of habeas corpus and the right to a lawyer – at the mere command of the President.

While Democrats continually pay lip service to helping the indigent, those groups have only fallen further behind since welfare was implemented decades ago and have fared even worse more recently as Dems pushed lockdowns and school closures.

While many conservatives applaud Trump for withdrawing from the WHO and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), he negotiated a new agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) which by many measures is worse than the TPP.

And, I can’t discuss Trump without mentioning it was he who placed the military in charge of Operation Warp Speed – rushing a COVID vaccine through approval which by many measures is an unmitigated disaster, yet he still lauds his accomplishment.

Can you imagine the outrage amongst Trumpers had Obama enlisted the military to conduct an initiative like Operation Warp Speed?

From where I sit it’s pretty hard to tell these two parties apart despite all the rhetoric and fluff. While we’re listening to them promising the world and pandering to their bases, they’re busy cooking up deals in the back room to further the globalist agenda which in a nutshell means they have more, you have less, and you live in a digital prison.

Where There Is Risk There Must Be Choice?

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Where there is a risk there must be a choice?

Sorry but no. No. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

I am so frustrated by all the well-meaning activists and their signs emblazoned with that message.

What I do with my body has nothing to do with the degree of risk involved. What I do with my body is strictly my choice, period. This is not negotiable. I am a sovereign human being with natural rights no person or government may infringe.

And I would die defending those rights.

No, I’m not being sensational. I simply refuse to live as a slave and do not want that future for my husband, my son, or all the other people on the planet enduring this dystopian present.

This is a line I will not, and we must not, concede.

Have we forgotten what our founders declared in the Declaration of Independence? Those prescient, revolutionary masterminds proclaimed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.” [Emphasis mine.]

Have we forgotten why they wrote those words and what they truly mean?

Those who came before us wrote these words because they endured firsthand the hardship, suffering, indignity, and torment attendant to a system of government devoid of basic human rights and self-determination. They wrote them as they understood that our rights derive from something larger than any human being or human source – not from government, a person, or any manmade construct.

We possess natural rights due to the very fact of being born human. Our rights come from the source of all things and therefore cannot be removed.

This notion is unique to the United States. No other country’s founding documents proclaim such a fundamental and profound concept as this, an ideal millions of Americans hold dear, even sacred.

Our founders understood all too well the primacy of the individual and the fundamental rights which accompany each individual.

They grasped that if I yield the power and authority over my body to another who can force me to undergo a medical procedure as long as it’s deemed safe, then I am not free and may be compelled to submit to all manner of bodily intrusions.

That many politicians, thought leaders, and even judges defend a utilitarian ethos does not make it moral, ethical, or constitutional.

It is never right to harm one individual in service to the greater good and violating one individual’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy cannot be construed as anything other than harm.

As enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained so well, a society consists of individuals and cannot take precedence over the individual without sacrificing itself. Indeed, the individual is everything. If the greater good takes priority over the individual, we are a faceless mass.

If the greater good rules, may I be forced to eat only food deemed healthy and appropriate by the government? Does that mean I may eat no red meat, no butter and eggs, no raw foods – all foods I consider nutrient-dense health foods but which government has wrongly denigrated for decades?

May I be forced to eat bugs and synthetic meat, GMO salmon, corn, or soy? Before you laugh, search it up for yourself – lately, articles about the wonders of bug-eating abound. Restaurants serving ants, locusts, mealworms, and more are popping up nationwide.

What if I have allergic reactions or sensitivities to foods? Who decides how severe my reaction must be? What if my research on GMOs concludes they are harmful? Must I submit simply because some bureaucrat or potentially vested individual says so?

Can the amount of sugar I eat be restricted? Sugar undermines the immune system after all, so wouldn’t that benefit the greater good? What about potato chips, alcohol, cookies, crackers, and chips, all of which undermine my health and vitality, and therefore that of my community?

May I be coerced to donate blood to help my neighbor in need? What about one of my kidneys? May I be forced to take antidepressants to boost my mood or ADHD meds so I am more productive? May I be required to have brain and other implants installed in my body to monitor my moods and bodily functions and assure compliance with my medical treatment? May I be obliged to carry a baby for a woman who desperately wants to be a mother but can’t bear her own children?

Where do I the individual end and where does my community begin? If I as an individual can be harmed in service to the greater good, is my society a moral and ethical community?

With respect to what is deemed safe, who decides this? Have we completely forgotten history and all the mistakes science and scientists have made ranging from Vioxx to thalidomide and opioids?

Science is not absolute – it shifts and advances constantly. We once believed it was wise to x-ray pregnant women’s pelvises, we once believed handwashing was nonsense, we once believed mercury was a useful medicine. Ignoring these lessons of history is pure folly.

Who decides what is healthy or what research is valid? Why should someone I don’t know, who knows nothing about me, who is not me, who may have ulterior profit, political, or social motives, have ANY voice in how I keep myself well, how I care for myself when ill, or how I use my body?

When did we all vote and decide that the good of the community trumps the value of the individual? Western civilization, the US in particular, was built on the foundational principle of individual rights and freedoms. The Nazis reminded us that utilitarianism, the misguided belief that individuals may be sacrificed in service to the many, is evil. How did we so profoundly lose our way in 75 years?

The greater good is a glorified slide into a dark and endless black hole. A black hole I cannot and will not abide.

My body and my choices in relation to my body are not conditional on anything. Period.

Authoritarianism on the Rise

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

There has been a disturbing surge in arrests of freedom fighters and activists in recent weeks portending yet more assaults on our values, our freedoms, and our very way of life.

These events have shaken me deeply as I’m sure they will any reader who values liberty, justice, free speech, and the rule of law, as they reflect a decay in our society and our institutions.

Perhaps the better term is rot. Our systems are rotten.

That is the only description suitable to describe the heinous censorship, demonization, and silencing of those who challenge government narratives that has occurred over the past two years and which has now morphed into arresting peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

The message is clear: contradict the establishment norms and you represent a threat to the power and authority of politicians, even the system itself because those speaking out seek to expose the truth and potential wrongdoing of those holding the reins of power.

This development is not unique to any one western nation and reflects an alarming rise in authoritarianism. If there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that by arresting peaceful activists and attorneys, authorities reveal their true colors, which should serve to awaken more to the reality many of us already see closing in on us.

This escalation of pressure and arrests has taken place over the past few weeks against citizens seeking nothing more than truth, liberty, and justice for all.

Willem Engel, a Dutch activist and founder of Viruswaarheid (Virus Truth), was arrested on the charge of sedition and incitement. According to a close contact of Engel’s, this is, “A remarkable charge that goes against the core message of love, patience, connection, respect and non-violence tirelessly propagated by Willem over the past two years. ‘We are the decent people’ has been his constant motto.” 

Engel is being detained for 14 days and is to appear in court in Rotterdam on Tuesday, March 29th, 2022.

Engel’s group Viruswaarheid had planned two demonstrations in June but both were denied permission. Worse still, an appeal to that decision was denied as well.  An attorney close to Engel concludes that justice no longer exists in the Netherlands.

If government can deny the right to demonstrate, a sacred and protected right in western nations, one must seriously wonder where we are headed as supposed free societies.

In another example of government overreach, French attorney Virginie Araujo-Recchio’s home and office were raided culminating in her arrest in front of her children. She was taken into custody for alleged complicity in attempted acts of terrorism but released without charge three days later.

Araujo-Recchio, has been a vocal critic of France’s COVID measures and the violation of human rights and abuse of power those measures reflect. She has filed lawsuits challenging the legality of COVID measures and represents those seeking the freedom to live their lives according to their conscience and to direct the upbringing of their children.

She has been accused of nothing leaving us to conclude this exercise sought merely to intimidate, frighten, and harm. Chilling as the arrest was, such transparent attempts to silence opponents of COVID measures will be exposed for the unlawful, harassment, and abuse of authority that they are. 

In Germany, several actions signal an increase in pressure on those who question government. A German administrative court has green-lit government spying on a populist opposition party and the German government intends to seize the guns of over 1500 people whom they suspect of extremism. In another action, over 100 activists have been raided for the thoughtcrime of insulting German politicians online. Nicolai Binner, a German comedian, was criminally charged for making a Nazi comparison to the events of today.

Any thinking American must ponder whether these arrests and the escalation of the fight against truth seekers is a harbinger of what is to come in the US.

This question is particularly pertinent in light of the Department of Homeland Services’ recent National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin deeming “The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” as a domestic terrorism threat. DHS wrote, “For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.”

While Nineteen Eighty-Four’s thoughtcrime and Minority Report’s precrime may seem like warnings from a dystopian future, these incidents and directives indicate they have arrived in the present all across the west.

These actions against peaceful, law-abiding citizens and protestors by those in authority, backed by the genuine threat of force aren’t just frightening, they suggest an end to what westerners have known as the “free world.”

If you think I’m being sensational, consider what befell the truckers protesting, dancing, praying, and feeding the homeless in the streets of Ottawa – they were trampled with horses, had their truck windows smashed, their bank accounts frozen, their donations stolen – and some were arrested. All these measures contravene the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The protestors and the world watched aghast as Canadian Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, a war-powers style act, against his own citizens for the “crime” of protesting. As if such use of force to deal with peaceable people lawfully protesting their government was not frightening enough on its own, that a western leader would resort to such methods should serve as a wake-up call to us all that the push for more authority and power by government is neither inconsequential nor, likely, temporary.

Concerning as these times are, I believe that while we may lose in the short run, those of us who believe in freedom will win in the long run – there are simply too many of us and too few of them.

I hopefully wait for more who believe in the ideals of individualism, responsibility, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and bodily autonomy to join our ranks and demand that our natural rights be honored.

We are spiraling down into the depths of authoritarianism. We need all hands on deck. Will you stand with us?

A Lesson in Civics

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Americans have failed our nation. We’ve failed to honor the sacrifices, beliefs, and dreams of our founding fathers. We have failed in our duty to educate ourselves, understand the principles upon which our nation was built, engage in civic responsibility, and hold politicians at the local, state, and national levels accountable.

We’ve been too busy watching sports and reality TV, buying toys, and “keeping up with the Joneses” to carry out our duty to those who forged a truly revolutionary path to birth this great nation.

Thankfully, that is changing all across America as parents, workers, and students demand their voices be heard and that their rights be respected. As more Americans hold public servants accountable, the political climate in America has entered a new season.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an education on this very issue. Monday morning, February 7, 2022, I submitted a public comment to the Ketchum City Council and Mayor of Ketchum, Idaho as well as to neighboring city councils and mayors.

I called out those who make rules for our community yet do not abide by those rules themselves. I highlighted that public servants made rules for our communities but failed in their responsibility to discuss and defend those policy choices in a public forum.

According to comments made by several Ketchum city council members during the meeting, they were taken aback by the tone of many public comments they received from exasperated constituents opposed to the longstanding mask mandate.

As Americans have generally been disengaged from the political process, such sudden and exercised engagement may have been a surprise.

One of the main refrains uttered by local politicians in communications with their constituents has been that they ‘trust the experts.’ County Blaine County Commissioner Chair Dick Fosbury wrote in an email (pg. 69) to Ketchum City Council member Amanda Breen, ”It is my professional opinion that you do not need to debate Ms. Manookian. Let her debate our State Epidemiologist, Dr. Christine Hahn.”  He continued, “This is not a debate, listen to the licensed professionals.”

For the record, I’d gladly debate Dr. Hahn or have one of the doctors and scientists with whom I’m in contact do so. I eagerly await an invitation from Chair Fosbury to do so in our valley and will reach out to him to make arrangements for such an event.

But his comments illustrate the primary purpose for which I write today: the need to remind politicians that voters did not elect faceless, nameless experts to represent them and experts are not accountable to the voters. 

The politicians elected to represent citizens are accountable to the people and we the people will hold them accountable.

Allowing anonymous experts to dictate policy unchallenged while hiding behind the defense that ‘I was just heeding the advice of the experts’ without publicly defending the science and rationale for one’s reasoning and policy choices is a clear abdication of the responsibilities of public office and a violation of our founding fathers’ intentions. 

Let’s not forget that “experts” make mistakes all the time and when the voices of dissenting experts are being censored and denigrated by government, as has happened during this crisis, it should alarm us all. 

Have we forgotten that experts brought us birth defects from drugs like Thalidomide and DES, that experts x-rayed pregnant women’s pelvises, approved Vioxx and opioids, and allowed mercury in eye drops, drugs, and children’s vaccines?

Are public servants unaware that the scientists who linked stomach ulcers to a pathogen were ostracized, defunded, and derided as lunatics only to be awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine twenty years later in 2005? 

Have elected officials not heard of regulatory capture and that FDA, CDC, and NIH are prime but unfortunate examples of this pernicious development? 

User fees paid directly to FDA by the pharmaceutical industry (the very industry it’s supposed to regulate), account for about 45% of FDA’s total budget and a whopping 65% of FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries. FDA has even gone so far as to ask a court to BLOCK release of Pfizer’s clinical trial data relating to its COVID injection for 75 years.

CDC takes millions from the pharmaceutical industry, giant private foundations, and other interested parties through its public-private partnership. It is the largest purchaser of vaccines in the US and even owns dozens of patents on vaccines while simultaneously being charged with ensuring the safety of vaccines.

Scientists at NIH own half the patent on the Moderna shot they themselves developed and earn up to $150,000 per year on these patents. 

NIH has received an estimated $2 billion royalties since 1991 from licensing fees on vaccines they developed.  These are conflicts of interest no wise person dismisses. Does this information concern you?

Educated Americans do not want or need fallible, human, often conflicted “experts” directing policy decisions behind closed doors unchallenged by those with differing opinions.

We want the light of day shining on all decisions made by public servants and we expect them to be capable of defending the reasoning and science underlying their policy choices.

If public servants are incapable of doing so, they have no business mandating policy.

Thankfully Americans are saying “no more.” We do not want just the preferred opinion of selected “experts,” who often have a vested interest in a particular outcome, dictating our policies. 

We do not want politicians that hide behind computer screens on zoom meetings and fail to appear in public before their constituents.

We do not want a process that denies constituents the ability to explain their perspective and hold those politicians accountable face-to-face. 

While many politicians talk about the importance of their mission to protect public health, I think they misconstrue that mission and imperative.

Public servants are supposed to ensure that corporations don’t dump toxins into our rivers, that there is no waste on the streets, and that we have a clean and safe environment in which to live, socialize, conduct business, attend school, etc.

Nowhere in our founding documents, indeed nowhere in law, does it state that public health power extends to forcing an individual to cover their face (and airways) in what can only be described as a dehumanizing and demeaning exercise in subservience, not to mention an unhealthy one.

Nowhere does any statute assert that experimental drugs should be forced or coerced into or onto anyone’s body. 

It may surprise you to know that CDC does not rely on a single controlled trial to prove the efficacy of masks, rather CDC ignores the dozens of controlled trials that show masks are ineffective. 

Anyone who has delved into the matter (see mask section) will know that ever since the Spanish flu, masks were universally viewed as ineffective at stopping the spread of airborne illnesses until so-called experts manufactured new “science” to support the narrative just a few months into the COVID crisis.

Any thinking person must question whether this “science” that suddenly contradicted a century of research, served as a convenient tool to frighten, control, and divide the public resulting in the loss of our rights and the destruction of all our societal and constitutionally protected and understood norms.

Many politicians display an utter disrespect and disregard for our founding fathers and founding principles and it is high time that they wake up and remember that our government is of, by, and for the people – and that they serve us. 

Furthermore, when attempting to impose restrictions on our freedom of movement and our liberty in any way, shape, or form, in violation of our rights, they should expect to be held accountable in the strongest peaceful manner possible.

That they are surprised when Americans peacefully protest reflects our decades-long failure to engage in the political process.

I remind these public servants that speech is not violence, and that anger is the result of people being dismissed, derided, and slurred as fringe conspiracy, anti-vaxxers, anti-Semites, racists, and more. When public servants dismiss and smear their own communities, they are going to feel the displeasure of the people. 

Hurling the “antisemitism” label at those with whom you disagree is despicable and inappropriate.  Unfortunately, this trend is a hallmark of the “cancel culture” plaguing our country and to which so many, sadly, to our detriment and potential national destruction, seem to subscribe. 

Big tech and social media spawned public sharing of hitherto private information to faceless followers and friends, many of whom post nasty comments hidden safely behind their screens.

Big Tech siloed users into echo chambers where they remained oblivious to other perspectives.

Big Tech quashed challenges to the mainstream opinion, labeling only those from Big Tech-sanctioned sources such as CDC and NIH as legitimate.

Americans removed from face-to-face contact combined with limited information and perspective begot what we now know as cancel culture of anyone with different opinions. 

This development not only shut down public discourse, it also allowed those who promulgated unlawful and wrongheaded policies to cocoon themselves in the misguided notion that their “expert-driven” opinions are absolute and that their decisions are unassailable because Big Tech censored opposing viewpoints, used fake fact-checkers to label them false, and created the impression there was no legitimate debate through their cancel culture tactics.

This is a loathsome, poisonous trend infecting our populace. Unfortunately, it is pushed by national leaders and now, it would seem, even local ones.

Ketchum city councilwoman Amanda Breen charged on the public record during a Ketchum City Council meeting that the work of Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. and our lawsuits are anti-Semitic.

Let’s be clear, anti-Semitism means being hateful against those of Jewish origin because of their religion and race, it means discriminating against them because of their religion and race, it means isolating them, marginalizing them, and dehumanizing them because of their religion and race. 

It does not mean referring to the Nuremberg Code as a seminal event in human history which instilled in the global consciousness and codified in international law the moral and ethical principle of informed consent, meaning that we do not force medical interventions, whether experimental or not, on human beings. 

Prior voluntary informed consent of all medical interventions is requisite for the practice of ethical medicine.

These legal norms have been reinforced in national laws and in international treaties, declarations, and agreements ranging from the Nuremberg Code in 1947 to the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 and the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in 2005.

That Amanda Breen deliberately conflated a reference to the Nuremberg Code in our lawsuits with anti-Semitism is unconscionable. That she doubled down when challenged is even worse.

But perhaps worst of all, Breen’s snipe is aimed at canceling the point of the lawsuit, namely, that the Nuremberg Code which seeks to protect human rights must be honored. 

Of course, she is free to say whatever she chooses to say, and I support her right to freedom of speech, but for a public servant to call a lawful, ethical person, and the nonprofit I run, anti-Semitic is not only inaccurate, it is deeply disappointing as it seeks to discredit and cancel my views and opinions through a highly charged smear rather than engage in debate.

I publicly challenged Breen to identify an instance where I have been racist, where I have been bigoted, where I have discriminated against anyone on the basis of their gender race, religion, or any immutable trait. She has not responded but I know she will not be able to as I have fought against bigotry in all its guises my entire adult life. 

That Breen has not been condemned by the local newspaper, by her community, or by other public servants speaks to the failure of Americans to understand our history, our founding principles, and the responsibilities attendant with public service.

History teaches that this kind of divisive rhetoric won’t end well. To those of you who dishonestly and dishonorably call those with differing opinions anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, and other slurs, there will be a day of reckoning.

You are pushing our country towards a breaking point, you are separating us, and it will only hurt us all.

At first, I was offended that someone I’ve known for many years would make such a statement but then I saw the gift of a teaching opportunity for me, my friends, and my community. 

Instead of shrinking away from such defamatory interactions, I view it as an opportunity to expose the lack of appreciation for our founding principles and our history and to hold public servants accountable for their votes and actions.

I hope my stand empowers others to do the same as that is the only answer to the strife we face. 

Americans must summon the courage to stand for our rights as sovereign human beings. Public servants must embrace an informed populace and actively engage their opinions as doing so will only strengthen our communities and our nation.

By coming together to embrace our shared history we can forge a new path, a better path for all.

Subscribe to Leslie’s Substack | Heretic with Leslie Manookian