So we listened to Riley's interview linked in another thread. Afterward, we went for a walk and the conversation naturally lent itself to what we had just heard. My husband is a God fearing patriot who served two tours in Iraq. He is military through and through.
My position: If the military didn't remove bodily autonomy by compelling members of the armed forces to put things into their bodies that they didn't want, people like Riley would still be in the military.
His position: Members of the armed services lose the right to bodily autonomy when they join. If one is ordered to take a given series of vaccines or meds, then one should have faith in the higher-ups who've deemed it necessary and follow those orders. If members of the military are allowed to pick and choose what they put in their bodies, then the chain of command breaks down and weakens the military as a whole. He went on to say that he was given all kinds of things when he served and he never questioned it. "It's the military way."
My counter position: But the c-19 vaccine was experimental and was only authorized for emergency use, which is why the FDA rushed the approval in order to give a legal leg to stand on with regard to the mandate. I contend that if members of the military have the right to refuse to put something in their bodies, then at least they are protected from anyone at the top who is involved in nefarious actions.
His contention: the military can't categorize orders (medical, combat etc) and function properly. An order is an order. Those who can't or won't follow them have the opportunity to leave the military.
We rarely talk about this kind of thing and today I was reminded of why...I can't help but wonder based on the Riley interview and papers if the CCP wasn't fully aware of this military mindset and this was part of their plan to weaken our military all along...with the help of JB of course...
Here's a good reference for you:
The Money Masters by Bill Still https://odysee.com/@KnowledgeBase:e/Bill-Still-The-Money-Masters-Full-Documentary-1996:7
On another note, everything else you described is the difference between a sovereign and a citizen, something I explain in this comment.
I appreciate the follow up. I watched the money masters quite a while ago. My follow up research suggests they missed a lot of the bigger picture, but it is still a great introduction to the topic. Some elaboration on that "missing context" will be found in upcoming sections of my report.
With respect to the other, I agree with all except this sentence:
The US gov. was not meant to be a nation of sovereigns, or at least it was not intended that all people who lived in the United States were meant to be recognized as sovereign. It was sold as that, but from the beginning it contained a great deal of fuckery to ensure that that could not ever happen.
As an example of fuckery, look at the end of the 5th amendment:
This makes perfectly clear that the government has the right to take your property. It places the governmental corporation (legal entity) strictly above all of We The People (what you are calling a citizen) of the Treaty's jurisdiction (generally called a "country"). From this precedence all future similar fuckery of claims over a persons inalienable Rights (such as mandatory vaccines) becomes trivially simple.
For an example of how they could have made it actually what you suggest, an explicit statement of "all signatories to this treaty, present and future, are recognized as sovereign." That plus explicit statements of everyone (all of We The People) being a signatory (given the option to enter into the treaty) along with a reasonable exit clause would have prevented almost every single thing that has been tacked on to our system since then.
Very good points, even more for me to think about. Thank you.