Idaho lawmakers have introduced a bill to criminalize the administration of any mRNA vax

It probably won't go anywhere due to rampant corruption, but at least it's a start.

Note the snake-speak: It "assists [your body] in making proteins". Yeah right, there's a difference between "assistance" and FORCE. Still quoting the fraudulent Johns Hopkins to boot, while mis-spelling it John.​

And that is constitutionally within the states right to do!

Click to expand...

Of course, even as the saints of God, the followers of Jesus Christ, are not to partake of the godless State.

Of course we partaqke of the godless statew.
I don't.
We pay taxes
I don't.
We use state facilities and services
We collect social Security and Medicare
I don't.
We vote
I don't.
We ride on roads etc.etc.
Roads belong to the people.

If you have income and pay no tax- you will partake of one state thing- prison.

Click to expand...

That would be IF you have "income" - no, I do not have "income."

Roads belong to the state- they authorize and construct them and collect taxes from the people to build them- a socialistic type of things.

Click to expand...

There are so many conditioned responses to the lies of the purported authorities, in lieu of the One True God. And the belief that the roads belong to the State is but one of them.

To further illustrate, most people believe that "roads" belong to the government. They don't. Just because the government paves over a way common to all does not make it theirs. After all, if the government comes to your home and paves your dirt driveway, does that now mean the driveway belongs to the government? Of course not. And their own laws confirm that the "roads" belong to the people, not the government:

Unalienable: Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 3350.

Unalienable: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1959), Vol.2, p.610.

This ties back to the OP because most of us are rendering, in ignorance, to the counterfeit, the pretender, the false authority, who, like the Most High God, also seeks our obeisance. An injection today, a gun barrel tomorrow...

There's a term for people who live that belief but it won't come to mind.

Click to expand...

Well, there are many "terms" the usurper attempts to attach to those of Christ who walk in true liberty. Once one is "labelled" and one then appropriates that label, one can be tossed about like the political football he has become. Thus the purpose of labels is manifest.

Do you drive w/o a license?

Click to expand...

A fair question. "Drive" is purely a commercial term and thus applies only to those who are engaged in commercial activity, in commerce i.e. profiteering (which is a sin):

DRIVER. One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle... Black's Law Dictionary (1968), p.585.

And a license is simply permission to do that which would otherwise be considered, by a purported authority, to be illegal. "License" comes from the word licentious, meaning "morally unrestrained and lascivious" - which is precisely what the antichrist purported authority is.

When one works for, or is employed by, an individual or company that gets its privilege to operate from the State through business licenses, incorporation, etc., that person becomes, as the company has become, subject to regulation, taxation, etc. through the master-servant doctrine (rendering unto Caesar). Social Security Numbers, Drivers Licenses, Insurance Policies and all of the other indicators of commercial activity are required and made a matter of record for commercial tracking purposes.

I exercise my right of avoidance. I do not partake of commercial activity; thus I use no such marks of Caesar. So no, I do not "drive" my "vehicle" (legal terms); rather, I guide my vessel - sans Caesarian marks of ownership e.g. licenses, warrants, fitness checks, insurance, number plates, ad nauseum. No man can serve two masters.

I more than suggest that you, too, exercise your right of avoidance e.g. the injection(s) - the purported Caesarian authority (re: the OP and the legislation of Idaho lawmakers) notwithstanding.

Sovereign Citizens! That's the label that wouldn't come to me earlier.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one of the many labels tossed about.

I'll close with this. If you drive a vehicle the title of which is registered with the state, you've defeated your own purpose.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Same if you own a house the deed of which is filed with the state.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Do you not see social media as being worldly ?

Click to expand...

Is worldly and being worldly are worlds apart. Indeed, it's all vanity and vexation of spirit, thus while the follower of Jesus Christ may be in the world, he is not of the world. (Ecclesiastes 1: 14; Romans 12:2)

Avoidance is an exercise of Liberty and when force is attempted to nullify Liberty

Click to expand...

We are to be about the Father's business, speaking Truth to power. (Luke 2:49)

Nullification is a Liberty Established for the People.

Click to expand...

"Nullification" is the constitutional theory that individual states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions they deem unconstitutional. However, the devil is in the details, as a constitution is simply another contract - something that can be altered and renegotiated at any time. "The People," a legal entity, have wilfully made themselves a party to that contract, and will thus render accordingly...

However, who can make clean that which is unclean? (Job 14:4); and Satan cannot cast out Satan. (Matthew 12:26) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6:17)

He is seated to serve himself at the Cost of oppressing Liberty of the People at Large.

Click to expand...

An accurate description of antichrist.

OP status update:

• Bill Status: The specific legislation referenced in this 2023 news headline (House Bill 154) did not pass.
• Current Legislative Actions: As of May 2026, Idaho has rejected several anti-vaccine bills during the current session.
• Recent Legislation: Idaho lawmakers passed the "Medical Freedom Act" in 2025, which prohibits vaccine mandates but does not criminalize their administration.

Also, reviewing the thread, I see that I failed to clearly answer Rita's question:

Rita said:

Do you not see social media as being worldly ?'

Click to expand...

"Social media" is a tool that can be used to advance "worldly" agendas or to advance the kingdom of God.

Also, I failed to expound on Ronald Nolette's comment:

Ronald Nolette said:

Even Paul took advantage of his roman citizenbship to advance the kingdom.

Click to expand...

Probably the first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen". The misunderstanding centers on the meaning of "citizen" and an assumed allegiance to Caesar.

Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."

Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same meaning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.

Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."

City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"

Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."

And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:

Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.

Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."

"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."

In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."

Notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a citizen of that country, one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have submitted themselves to.

How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.

Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:

"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.

Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we cannot participate in the politics of the nation.

To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:

"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.

This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.