I recently watched the movie, Children of Men. The movie details a world where humans are no longer able to procreate. It sounds so morbid. What is also evident in the movie is a world that pits the common citizen against the government. If you are not WITH the government then you are labeled a terrorist.

I happen to think we are moving toward that kind of world. A world where infertility becomes the norm. With vaccinations being pushed on us at every turn and our total inability to verify what's in the vaccinations, infertility could very well be the result along with every other disease that is spreading like wildfire. I also believe that many diseases are engineered in a laboratory then tested on humans without consent. Think of the HIV/ AIDS epidemic that proliferated in the late 70's. Odd that it only affected a portion of the world that included the poor minority (third world), the homosexual, and the drug addict. This then turned into a moral judgment, by a good portion of the general population, on those that had become infected. Where did the virus originate and could it have really been isolated within the poor, gay, drug addicted community? The topic is something I think about in the face of my own inability to conceive.

The main characters of the movie stand in opposition of the government. They are labeled "terrorist" and are all in a concerted effort to get a pregnant woman to a safe haven. In the safe haven, scientists are attempting to figure out why, for 18 years, all pregnancies resulted in miscarriages and then eventually no pregnancies, then... no children.

I find the terrorist label to be something that already exists in this era, as it appeared in previous periods of history. Just after World War II Americans were afraid of "communists" and now it's the "terrorists". I think it's safe to say that ANYONE that doesn't support the government has the possibility of ending up on the governments naughty list. If you sit back and think of some of the most admirable characters in history, you'd find that most of them have been imprisoned at some point in their life.

There are two conclusions that I draw from this. The first is that man's law (the government) is faulty. If they imprisoned good men/ women that promoted higher ideals and higher moral codes of conduct, what does that say of the institution that locked them up? A few names that come to mind:

Jesus... and his disciples.




Nelson Mandela.


Gandhi.


Assata Shakur.


Biblical -- Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego (my favorite bible story).


The last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, Queen Lili'uokalani.


The second conclusion I make is that I refuse to be on the "wrong" side just because it's easier. The easier path, for most people, is to comply with the powers that be. I imagine that it probably would have been easier for Jesus to succumb to the will of the Jewish majority and the Roman government. His disciples, as revealed by stories in the New Testament, had a tough time in affirming their connection to Jesus. And yet, Jesus persevered and did what he came to the earth to do.

You can select any name from my list and attempt to prove me wrong. (You probably have more that you could add to this list.) They were revolutionaries and I admire them for their courage and I desire to align myself with them.

The entire premise of this post was two-fold. First, to express my vaccination woes. Second, to point out the obvious relation between revolutionary leaders being pitted against the government. Please, never be on the wrong side.

I don't think that I am more apt to believe all the bad things in the world. I wholly believe in the good in the universe and that we, human beings, have the capacity to rise above the lust for power and greed. We have the power to use our minds, our souls, and our hearts to make correct decisions that will direct the course of our eternal lives. It is our duty to steer others from a life that is void of free will. May your path always seek to preserve free agency for all!