I was recently sent a private message questioning a stance that I shared in my IG stories.
I presumed the messenger was sincere in asking her question and I desired to offer her a response. Although, I generally do not feel that I owe anyone an explanation, online or in person, regarding my decisions.
But I took it to my husband for further discernment since I’m well aware that such online convos may open my family up to spiritual attacks.
With his approval and the encouragement of a dear friend in a short text chat on Sat., I’ve opted to share my response publicly.
My husband and I fully acknowledge that things will be escalating as the election continues to be drawn out and regardless of who will officially be selected as POTUS.
IT IS NOT A TIME FOR US TO BE SILENT!
Below is my fairly short response that may disappoint some. I will not do the homework for strangers that inquire and I am not compelled to offer them a thorough explanation. I respond with charity and firmness. I’m sure some take offense by my approach but I’m more concerned with offending God than being liked by others.
Here is my response:
You can refer to my other shares from Archbishop Vigano & Bishop Schneider — or go look up their recent writings that sum up the crux of the issue as far as I’m concerned.
It’s not about safety or health. It is NOT a pro-life matter.
Being pro-life doesn’t involve imagining that one can eliminate every risk!
Furthermore, we are not required to follow any of the current suggestions/mandates (or laws even if one existed) that prohibit our God given freedoms or diminish our dignity as a person, made in the image and likeness of God.
This does not mean that I’m not respectful of someone’s needs or health.
I’m a healthy child of God who takes my health very seriously and I do my part to support the health of my family and others — including not going out places if I’m under the weather.
But I will not wear a face covering (when I’m completely healthy) which conceals my identity and impedes my oxygen intake. The UNIMPEDED flow of oxygen is essential to my health and immune system.
Taking a vaccine is also not required to be pro-life. I’m sure that’s going to be the next line that’s thrown out there by some.
If you or anyone else has discerned otherwise for yourself, I respect your decision. I trust that you are a responsible individual who can make up your own mind about how best to keep yourself and your family safe, healthy, and happy.
CHRIST IS KING!
Below is a the dialogue of fellow California Patriots regarding masks for shopping.
11.16.20
Just got Mask Nazied at BofA. .
Me: “Well, I have a condition, I can’t wear a mask, but thank you.” The “security” clerk at the door was sweet and patient but kept repeating, “I’m sorry ma’am, I’m just enforcing policy.”
I asked, “So, BofA discriminates? Because, as you probably know, if the bank still serves the public, they must make accommodations for everyone.” She said,,”Well, we do have accommodations, I can’t let you inside, but you can use the ATM.”
ME: [emphasis only, the words are important] **So, IS EVERYONE LIMITED TO THE ATM OR JUST SOME?” She said, “EVERYONE WITH A MASK IS ALLOWED INSIDE.” I said, “I see…by what authority?” She replied, “…the bank.”
ME: “Well, if you allow some people in, then you must allow all people in or is isn’t equal, it’s discrimination, isn’t it?”
SHE: “Ma’am, I’m just enforcing the rules.
ME, “I know you are…and what is your name, please?” With a very subtle sign of exasperation, she groaned, “Kelleeeeeey,” and I followed up, “…and your last name…”
Kelly “Smith”.”
“Okay, Kelly “Smith,” employed by the bank, my name is Katherine “Doe,” bank customer for 40 years. Please advise management that I am invoking ALL LAWS and statutes that guarantee protection of my rights and supersede discriminatory policies.”
She said, “If you can wait right here for ‘social distancing,’ I can let you in.”
“Okay, Kelly, I’ll wait.” And I did. For about 6 seconds and then she let me in. I went inside to withdraw the cash I could have much easier saved the hassle and gotten at the one ATM they haven’t disabled, but it’s important to assert rights, or why have them, right? As I punched in my pin the teller asked, “Was the ATM down?” I said, “No, not at all, I just wanted to see your happy face, be near people, have some human interaction, y’know.”
Teller: “Uh…hmmm…oh.”
Yes, strangely, she was annoyed. On the way out I smiled and said, “Thank you very much, Kelly Smith.”
She said, “I’m sorry, I’m just doing my job.”
ME: “Miss Kelly, my new friend, I’m going to refer you to the website so that you understand what “I’m just doing my job” actually means. I want you to be prepared because it isn’t the bank, the bank president or manager who must be held accountable first under Title 18 United States Code 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and CA Civil Rights Code 51b and 52, it’s going to be you, personally, and the bank, bank president and manager will not able to protect you.
I know it’s harsh, Kelly, but I’m defending your rights, too. Just as I am, all Americans are DUTY-BOUND to hold the “enforcers” at the door accountable, because if we don’t *defend* our rights, then we don’t have any, isn’t that right? And I’m going to be very blunt… the Nazis were just doing their jobs, “just following orders,” and that was no defense for them at trial.
There is no law that compels anyone to wear masks or for businesses to impose them on customers, but please do read the laws they’re paying you to violate. The truth is, if “we the people” of America were morally enlightened and had the knowledge to even define a right, there wouldn’t be such a job because no one would ever do it.”
www.constitutionallawgroup.us
