In Western legal systems, an imminent, credible threat also qualifies as a crime.
If you threaten force by holding a gun to someone's head, and ask them nicely saying, "I would hate to pull this trigger, so help me to help you by handing over your wallet," you have compelled someone to comply using the threat of force. Even though you never actually pulled the trigger, and you were very polite, it's still a crime.
Even if they reply saying, "No, you're right... I'm sure you know better than me how to spend my money," nothing they say can be relied upon as credible evidence to excuse you from prosecution. Because they said it under duress. Nobody can be said to be consenting, when under duress.
When Fauci says when approval comes for drug X, 'mandates will come'. That should not be interpreted by sane citizens the world over in any other way than a threat of violence. Especially when it turns out trial data was sent to the DoD and to DHHS prior to forwarding it on to the regulator. Governments have been demonstrating compliance and complicity with those who have made direct threats.
They were offered an alternate scientific opinion, and chose to ignore it. Which is a pattern, with State actors and their protected cronies.
The fact that some governments have begun carrying out those threats makes defensive force all the more justified.. because the threat just became as credible as it needs to be.
Sign up with Google
www.cdc.gov
