Boycott The SB277-Legitimizing Referendum


“The nation voted for the Islamic republic and everyone should obey.” – Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini in Qum, Iran, 1979

By Jake Crosby

On Tuesday, the referendum on the new state law to eliminate school vaccine exemptions based on parental choice was cleared by the State of California to begin receiving signatures for a popular vote on the formerly named Senate Bill 277 (SB277). Yet the challenge to the law by ex-assemblyman Tim Donnelly has received the harshest criticism from some of the staunchest opponents of the law, who argue popular consent will only legitimize its existence. Opposition on the referendum’s Facebook page was so fierce, Donnelly himself responded with the following message:

“You are free to disagree with the referendum, but you are not free to organize against it on this page. I understand that some people have concerns, and we’ve answered them mostly in private messages, but time is short. The Referendum will not in any way affect any legal battles going forward. This is simply the people’s VETO. If you’d rather take another route forward, you are free to organize and pursue it. Godspeed.”

But “the people’s VETO” will more likely be “the people’s SUPPORT” as the press throughout California has been overwhelmingly supportive of the law thanks in no small part to journalism groups trained by the corrupt Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As a consequence, public opinion has been overwhelmingly favorable to the law. Unlike their legislators, California’s constituents would not have the opportunity to hear testimony against the law – only to hear what their CDC-trained media tells them. Enforcing the tyranny of the propagandized majority is the only likely outcome of the referendum.

Yet despite Tim Donnelly’s invocation of democracy as the referendum’s basis, his decision to not allow open discussion of the referendum on its Facebook page is anything but democratic. It looks more like an ex-politician’s ill-informed campaign.

How Tim Donnelly can reassure people that “The Referendum will not in any way affect any legal battles going forward” is also a mystery. An argument for any law is the idea that the majority of people would want it. No more would lawyers arguing against the law be able to claim that only lawmakers given millions in contributions from drug companies voted for the law. Legal battles against the law will face the extra burden of de-legitimizing direct votes by a constituency of 39 million people and of arguing why the opinions of a minority of opponents take precedence over those of a majority.

Everyone opposed to SB277 should also boycott its referendum, lest they want to give SB277 proponents the following reason to bolster support for the law:

“The state voted for SB277 and everyone should obey.”

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

44 Thoughts on “Boycott The SB277-Legitimizing Referendum

  1. Hans Litten on July 15, 2015 at 7:17 am said:

    So Jake you are saying the referendum is a charade ?
    And to clear the conscience of the criminals who have brought this law into force ?
    Hoodwinking the public into voting into existence a law that poisons their own children ?

    sb277 is a Nazi law , worthy of the CDC’s predecessors , the Third Reich .

    • I don’t believe Donnelly is looking to reinforce SB277’s passing into law by popular decree, but that’s exactly what is almost certain to happen.

      • There are 3 remedies as an American. The soap box, which we have used, the ballot box which is next. The third box is ……

        The law is illegal but the judiciary is lawless. The masses are dumbed down satanic media slaves who act and behave in Pavlovian fashion who will do whatever they are told in order to be fed, clothed and housed by the ruling masters. This law is the beginning of the end of the slave class because via the administration of vaccinations in the name of the greater good it will sterilize the entire class.

        Only those who resist these injections will have any hopes of posterity.It is precisely why we must do all we can to delay, fight, overturn, and resist, if necessary at gunpoint this tyrannical edict from the pit of hell. This has been coming for decades. It started with parting out the children in the womb with the phony worthless churches blessing while now they inject these baby parts, cancer viruses and sterilants into the children of the media slaves. All we can do is stay steps ahead of the agendas.

        Get your children out of the classrooms now before the forced wireless microwave radiation destroys their reproductive functions, common core destroys their critical thinking and you all become acquiescent to the delayed inevitability of having your children sterilized by being enrolled in these brain damaging electronic sardine cans. There is a radio frequency activation required for the nano tech compounds in these vaccines to really finish the job.

  2. Eddie Unwind on July 15, 2015 at 9:48 am said:

    Disturbing. You also have pro-vaccine eugenecists like Gorsky claiming that SB277 is ‘not perfect’, stating how pediatricians such as Dr Sears – supposedly ‘anti-vaccine’, a conspiratorial notion if ever there was one – may find loopholes within the system to avoid the mandated vaccine program. Of course Gorsky realises that the bill will create havoc within the health system and so he’s already setting up the scapegoats.

    • He probably believes the law leaves too much decision making to doctors, which would be ironic considering that support from doctors was a major reason SB277 proponents like him gave for supporting the bill.

    • Let’s be honest with ourselves here: there are much more conspiratorial notions in existence than the allegation that Dr. Bob Sears is ‘anti-vaccine.’

      About the loopholes: the drafters had to know certain doctors would write false medical exemptions for parents so that their children could attend public schools. That’s unavoidable. Though theoretically, for the doctors willing to do that it puts their medical licenses at risks.

      What potential “havoc” are you referring to?

      • Eddie Unwind on July 16, 2015 at 2:47 am said:

        Appreciate your silent admission on classing Gorsky as a eugenecist(!). Respectfully, Ben, have you actually read Sears’ Vaccine book? I’ve read it cover to cover – twice – and there’s no way known that the man is anti-vaccine. He ought to be applauded for having detailed for the layman the ingredients of certain vaccines; my hunch is that this, more than anything else, is why he has been attacked by so many in the industry (as opposed to his purported ‘responsibility’ for certain outbreaks, which are speculative in the extreme, one might even suggest ‘conspiratorial’).

        There’s little question that Gorsky has it in for Sears, and I would not be at all surprised should he be first among those to point the finger at him if an outbreak post-SB277 in California occurs. Effectively, he’s already done this (preemptively, so to speak) in a recent article.

        In terms of potential havoc, well, we need only wait a bit to find out, right?

        • Who’s “Gorsky?” Do you actually mean “Gorski?”

          Would it make you feel better if people started referring to Dr. Bob Sears as “anti-vaccine science” instead? And, come on, you think he’s being targeted because of the book he wrote (which I might consider reading, though I’ve already read debunkings) as opposed to the measles outbreak he is attributed to having helped caused? That’s conspiratorial thinking, and it doesn’t seem to have a rational basis.

          If you have no idea what’s going to happen, then why are you claiming the bill will cause havoc with the healthcare system? I thought you might’ve had some theory on how this will play out that we could discuss.

          • Eddie Unwind on July 16, 2015 at 6:46 pm said:

            Gorsky or Gorski, with respect to such translations of Russian names the Y’s and I’s are virtually interchangeable (like the spelling of composers like Tchaikovsky/Tchaikovski and Mussorgsky/Mussorgski)…

            Sears’s ‘The Vaccine Book’ (and passages from it) has in fact been very much targeted as it has had a very wide readership. I don’t see how it is conspiratorial to suggest that a greatly publicised and relatively recent document of his has formed the basis for much aggravation and personal attacks.

            Best that you read it yourself before reaching conclusions based upon various ‘debunkings’, surely? You sound intelligent enough, give it a go.

            • Not that it matters, but it’s my understanding his heritage is Polish.

            • I just wanted to make sure we were thinking.of the same person who goes by the handle Orac. Lol why do you call him a eugenicist?

              It’s not conspiratorial to suggest Dr. Sears has gotten some flak for his book. I consider it conspiratorial to suggest the recent backlash against him is because of his book and not because of his role in the Disneyland measles outbreak.

              I will consider reading it, but my “to read” list is already a mile long. I’ll try to get around to it.

              • Eddie Unwind on July 16, 2015 at 10:50 pm said:

                Thanks for this, Ben.

                I should have mentioned that Sears’s vaccine book outlines his own vaccine program, which resulted in so much hostility re the Disneyland outbreak. Significantly, he also details how there has been comparatively no documented research (outside of a study limited to premature babies, for which the results were not at all favorable to the vaccine industry) into how infants are affected when injected with aluminum. I personally cannot see how any of this makes him anti-vaccine. He has been labelled an irresponsible doctor by many, and yet I think the contrary, given his methods of enquiry into a minefield topic, is perhaps true.

                Gorsky/Gorski is a nasty, superior-race kind of person, the truth of which his own articles provide ample evidence. I am slightly horrified that he has an audience at all, actually, but unfortunately there are many who think like he does. The practice of eugenics would, for such a mentality, be a perfectly logical step to take, but as the practice has such horrific connotations the tone will always be turned sufficiently down, just in time so to speak.

                I should have responded with regard to your enquiry into my predicting havoc. It’s pretty straightforward – my feeling is simply that SB277 and subsequently related bills, by virtue of their allowing no exemptions, must by extension prove the mandated vaccine program to be 100% effective. Anything short of this, given the 100%-restrictive parameters, is unethical to say the least. More accurately, it’s downright criminal (even Gorsky/Gorski himself knows that the 100% mark cannot be achieved, which is why, in my opinion, he’s setting up the scapegoats). Given such unstable foundations I can’t see how havoc within the health system, spurred on by the public’s expectation of 100% effectiveness, can possibly be avoided.

                • The problem is the vaccine schedule promoted by Dr. Sears is not supported by any kind of evidentiary basis; it’s like he’s pandering to the fear some parents have of vaccines. That’s why it might make more sense to call him “anti-vaccine science” than “anti-vaccine.” (Has anyone rebuked Dr. Sears specifically for calling for more research on the aluminum adjuvant? I would not be adverse to it, but I question whether most people who are actually interested in seeing such research done would accept the results if found to be neutral or negative in association; as such, it might be a misallocation of time and money)

                  You can’t call Gorski a eugenicist unless he has at least implicitly supported eugenics, which from what I’ve read of his blogposts I haven’t seen.

                  Regarding SB277: I completely disagree. First of all, SB277 does not “allow no exemptions;” it still allows medical exemptions. Second, no reasonable person is expecting 100% effectiveness when there is nothing in this world of ours that is 100% guaranteed. It’s an unreasonable standard, especially considering that vaccine programs have been acknowledged to be less than 100% effective in successful immunization. Third, it cannot be considered unethical unless you consider preventing children from entering public schools because they are not vaccinated to be unethical. When did home-schooling stop being an option?

                  • Eddie Unwind on July 17, 2015 at 6:35 am said:

                    I can only say that it sounds very much as though you are discussing things as a theoretical exercise, at arm’s length as it were. If my hunch is correct and you as yet have no kids, then the chances are, given your style, that your only fear is loss of face, or personal pride through argument.

                    For me as parent, these issues take on different dimensions. In other words, I take them very seriously, without consideration of any personal pride. Sears deals with and listens to the needs of parents all the time, and so I take him seriously. Gorsky/Gorski I take seriously also because this kind of personality is a real worry.

                    And if you too are a parent, then I shall have to reflect a bit and endeavor to take you seriously also…

                    • And why should I not? Emotions muddle the issue. Keep it at arm’s length, and you can maintain your objectivity. .. hopefully.

                      I understand that as a parent you have concerns for the safety and well-being of your child. I think Dr. Sears is doing parents a disservice by feeding (and frankly capitalizing ) on their fears, fears which we have not yet found a rational basis for. If he makes you feel safe in the decisions you make for your children then thats great, but his vaccine recommendations are not based on science and so there is a greater potential that he is leading you down the wrong path, which could negatively impact your children. Thats my concern.

                    • Narad on July 19, 2015 at 12:41 am said:

                      Gorsky/Gorski I take seriously also because this kind of personality is a real worry.

                      It’s quite amusing that you bizarrely continue to cling to this error. They’re different vowels in Polish; get over it.

                      I am slightly horrified that he has an audience at all….

                      I suppose that’s one way of rationalizing the embarrassment of your own disastrous forays over there.

                    • Eddie Unwind on July 22, 2015 at 10:54 pm said:

                      Narad, Polish and Russian indeed utilise different vowels. But substituting Y for I is still a permissible and frequently observed variant in such instances.

                    • Eddie Unwind on July 23, 2015 at 12:16 am said:

                      …just to add, I should mention that ‘sticklers’ are often among the most ignorant of people…

                    • Okay guys, this is both pedantic and irrelevant. Any more back-and-fourth comments about this will be deleted.

  3. Hans Litten on July 15, 2015 at 2:55 pm said:

    Here is your vaccines & what they are truly all about :

    By 1977, Reimert Ravenholt, the director of AID’s population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women. The gearing between Third World fecundity and First World prosperity is still a core policy theme. The immensely wealthy Pew Charitable Trusts–a cluster of foundations with an abiding interest in population control, recently issued a report that stated frankly: “The average American’s interest in maintaining high standards of living has been a prime motivator for U.S. population policy from its earliest formation and it is likely that this will continue for the foreseeable future.”

    In other words, the issue is distribution. But distribution raises uncomfortable questions of social justice. Sterilization, along with less drastic inhibitors, is far easier, particularly when it is made palatable to the liberal conscience by being tricked out in the verbal bunting of “empowerment” and “respect for the rights of women.”

  4. Given the disparity in resources and propaganda outlets, a referendum is likely to fail, whereas a legal challenge might succeed. I don’t see any other likely outcome.

  5. Vaccination is a medical intervention and I don’t care if 52 percent vote for it, 38 or 80 percent. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

  6. Shannon Hill on July 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm said:

    I have spoken with 10+ attorneys in detail on the issue. The referendum will NOT – hear me … WILL NOT interfere with lawsuits. In fact, several children are being discriminated against NOW and denied school for next year – one being denied summer camp based on vaccine record. At this point, we (Californians) lost SB277 so NOW we must hit it by EVERY angle. I am not an attorney, nor do I offer legal advice; however, I can tell you what I HAVE BEEN TOLD by several attorneys that took the time to explain to me “why” they would not take the case even with hardcore cash. These people going around thinking they can get legal representation have not obviously TRIED to hire an attorney. At this point in time, if the people do NOT pull together and give it all that they have – no one will know the outcome. I personally support the referendum because it will fire up the public to know that the government is making laws to take away our rights while we are working and sleeping – just trying to get by. And, to top that off – what will happen next? Some of these attorneys hiding behind their firms cannot speak out publicly because they are bound by their firms. Too many parents are scared right now and this is A HUGE opportunity for US to UNITE and show those in Sacramento that WE are tired of THEM voting to take away OUR RIGHTS! If we fail – then we fail, but I can say that I TRIED. I can file for myself in PRO PER because I have back up and know the right people, so for anyone to say that the referendum ruins any legal rights has not done their homework. I am spending my vacation time to get signatures because I believe the referendum is the right thing to do. In the event that the referendum fails, I will then see what options are (legally). Believe who you want – do what you want – it’s NOT about YOU …. This is about innocent children and their families who cannot sleep at night. Please do what is right in YOUR heart and be cautious of WHO you decide to listen to because I have been turned down! Lastly, look at prop 8 that got voted in but turned over in court. I think some people in this movement do not live in reality and have not done their homework. No hard feelings – we can agree to disagree but I have more than one attorney tell me personally to give the referendum “everything I have” and then …. worry about legal.

    • The referendum will delay the ability to file lawsuits because it will delay the law being able to take effect. It’s also counter-intuitive to rally support for a popular vote on a law if your next plan is to argue it’s unconstitutional in court.

      I don’t understand why you are so discouraged by what a few lawyers tell you, but don’t see that 82% of public opinion in SB277’s favor shows a referendum is the political equivalent of sticking your head in the cannon and then firing.

  7. Narad on July 16, 2015 at 1:46 am said:

    The referendum will delay the ability to file lawsuits because it will delay the law being able to take effect.

    The question is what any such lawsuit would be predicated upon. All I can see is trying to build it out of Serrano II, and even Steven Sugarman, who (successfully) argued the case, doesn’t buy it.

    • I agree, a lawsuit predicated upon the right to an education wouldn’t be any more effective than a referendum and would probably fail.

      • Narad on July 16, 2015 at 5:43 am said:

        So what do you think a viable basis would be?

        • Probably the extent to which the state can invoke its police powers concerning vaccination, which there are limitations on.

          • Narad on July 16, 2015 at 11:29 pm said:

            Probably the extent to which the state can invoke its police powers concerning vaccination, which there are limitations on.

            OK, but now we’re talking about the U.S. Constitution. Let me back up for a second first, though: One angle for a suit based on Serrano II could be that the different homeschooling options are fundamentally inferior to public/private schools. This could make for some interesting amici.

            But back to the federal angle and state police powers, this has been tried. Patricia Finn (predictably) lost Workman* on appeal in the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.**

            So what would, in essence, almost certainly have to occur here is the creation of a split between the Fourth and Ninth Circuits to force a reconsideration of Zucht and Jacobson, and it’s also almost certainly going to be evaluated in terms of the rational-basis text rather than strict scrutiny.

            It would be a severe understatement to describe this as a long shot. Are you really more just aiming for a delaying tactic?

            At the state level, one at least has a chance at forcing strict-scrutiny review, but then you’re back to Serrano II as far as I can tell.

            * Workman v. Mingo County Sch., 667 F. Supp. 2d 679 (S.D. W. Va. 2009), aff’d sub nom. Workman v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., No. 09-2352 [PDF], 419 F. App’x 348 (4th Cir. Mar. 22, 2011) (per curiam).

            ** This news story is a simplistic account, but it was ready to hand.

  8. Hans Litten on July 16, 2015 at 7:41 am said:

    Herod – you really are special – you know that . The mass Flouridation of the public water supply with a known poison (that causes reduction in IQ , first used by the nazis in the concentration camps in WW2) .
    THIS IS YOUR DEFENCE ! You are one crazy dude .

    “At UC Berkeley, law professor Stephen Sugarman, a nationally renowned expert in education rights, said he does not believe SB 277 violates parents’ or students’ constitutional rights.
    “We interfere with people’s liberty in the name of public health in many ways,” said Sugarman, who argued in the 1971 state Supreme Court case Serrano v. Priest about disparities in school funding in California. He pointed out that individuals with tuberculosis can be quarantined, while chemicals are added into the public water supply to fight tooth decay”

  9. Hans Litten on July 17, 2015 at 3:08 am said:

    Ben , fluoride is a poison , its even written on the side of the toothpaste tubes – do not swallow .
    Fluoride is a sedative , dampening down the will of the people .
    Fluoride is a carcinogen (ireland has the highest rate of cancer in Europe).
    And Ireland certainly does not have the best dental outcomes in Europe .
    Fluoridated Water populations have a 10% higher rate of down syndrome outcomes .

    In 2014 Israel quietly reversed the national policy of flouridating the water supply .
    Leaving only 8 countries in the world , using the method .

    It is not difficult to find this information Ben . Its an open conspiracy lying there in plain sight .
    Mass Vaccination is part of the same policy . A Nazi policy .

    • The dose makes the poison, not the substance. You will neee to cite your claims that fluoride is poisonous at the levels found in drinking water, that it acts as a sedative and carcinogen at those doses, and that fluoridated water contributes to Down syndrome

  10. Hans Litten on July 17, 2015 at 7:47 am said:

    On June 19 news broke five children in Switzerland had died taking GcMAF (first I have heard of it)

    I’d like to see the Swiss authorities confirm this . And name the 5 children . Because I do not believe them . (Why didn’t the kids die in the US or the UK ? Why is it always overseas)
    It sounds a very similar story to the Burzynski story (where the FDA tried to steal his cancer treatment for themselves)

    An expose in The Washington Post has shown that Bradstreet had been administering thousands of patients with an experimental, expensive and highly-contentious drug called GcMAF – a protein injection – which he claimed could completely cure autism after five months of treatment.

  11. Hans Litten on July 17, 2015 at 10:52 am said:

    And although he admitted that a rash of GcMAF patients had died at his Swiss clinic before it, too, was shut down, Noakes said that the media had buried the real story: the clinic’s success.
    “We had 76 terminal stage four cancer patients,” he said. “We saved 70 percent of them. They went home improving. The other 30 percent of them died but all 100 percent of them were expected to die.”
    “They were prosecuting us for manslaughter to start out off with. They have now given that up because they realized how ridiculous that is in a terminal stage four cancer clinic,” he said, adding that his clinic was instead currently facing fraud charges.
    Noakes admitted to using substances “not to be administered to humans” in his GcMAF but insisted that was common practice and that his product was safe and sterile. He also boasted to sending his vials to 9,000 patients in 80 nations.

    Outlining a vast, global conspiracy to suppress GcMAF and discredit or even kill its proponents, Noakes said Bradstreet had paid for his beliefs with his life.
    “He was an extremely confident man despite 10 years of threats,” he said. “Dr. Bradstreet was never embarrassed. He never had any doubts.”

    Thanks vm Fiona O’Leary from Drimoleague

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation