by: J. D. Heyes
As we get closer and closer to the presidential election on November 8, it is becoming very clear who the logical candidate is if health freedom is important to you.
Hint: It’s not Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
As far back as 1993, for instance – when Clinton was first lady and pushing for an earlier version of Obamacare (again under the guise of “health care reform”) – two programs she backed were the Childhood Immunization Initiative and Vaccines for Children.
Now, it wouldn’t be Hillary if her position hadn’t changed over the years, largely due to the whims of donors of course. In 2008, for instance, during her first presidential campaign, she alluded to research that established a link between vaccines and higher rates of autism in children. “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including environmental causes like vaccines [my emphasis]… We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out,” she said.
Change of heart, thanks to Big Pharma’s money
By February 2015, as she was ramping up her current presidential bid, she Twitter-trolled some Republican presidential candidates after the link between vaccines and autism came up during an early GOP debates, in which a few of the candidates – including Trump – voiced concern and expressed caution about the efficacy of vaccinating kids with a high number all at once. After the debate Clinton tweeted, “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect our kids.”
Obviously that is not what she was touting in 2008, but in addition to that fact, her position now is a chilling reminder that she doesn’t appear interested in offering parents a vaccine choice. Coupled with the fact that she is the number one recipient of Big Pharma donations this election cycle, her opinion now appears solidly in the camp of the pharmaceutical industry, now that the industry is helping her campaign pay its bills. That will be another slap at the personal choice and health freedom of American parents. She could even push for a vaccine mandate, like the one recently passed in California.
Indeed, in September we reported on a new CDC plan to essentially detain people and vaccinate them against their will. This plan would no doubt get the support of Hillary should she become president, as she is a big government statist who believes in the power of government, not empowering individuals, as she has spent her entire professional life expanding it in any way she could.
Big government statist who loves mandates
It all makes perfect sense when you examine not what she says, per se, but what her donors in Big Pharma want and what her record shows as first lady, a U.S. senator and as the most corrupt secretary of state in one of the most corrupt presidential administrations in the history of the country.
Clinton doesn’t favor returning power to states, communities or individuals. On the campaign trail all she talks about is how she wants to use the power of government to force people to do certain things, to take away rights, and to empower government bureaucrats to further micromanage our lives. She doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, the worst health care legislation in decades, and in fact reveals on her campaign web site, that as president she plans to double down on “expanding healthcare coverage” – like Obamacare did, by forcing Americans to pay for a product or service for the first time ever. And the product we got was more expensive, came with less choice and has not lowered healthcare costs in general, all things Obama (and Hillary) promised would happen.
Hillary Clinton is a big government statist that will use the power of her office to further impose medical mandates and vaccine madness on a people who were supposed to have the freedom to choose for themselves what treatments they want and don’t want.