Sep 25, 2026 3-5pm ET
Friday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
New York Teen Forced Out of School After Judge Denies Medical Exemption A New York high school senior identified as Sarah Doe was barred from attending classes beginning September 24 after U.S. District Judge Gary Brown declined to extend a court-ordered medical exemption that had allowed her to attend school during the previous academic year without completing New York’s required vaccination schedule. Sarah’s family says her health deteriorated dramatically after she received 18 vaccine doses over approximately six weeks as part of a catch-up schedule following New York’s 2019 elimination of religious exemptions for school vaccination. According to the lawsuit and medical records described by Children’s Health Defense, Sarah experienced serious symptoms following the vaccinations, including widespread pain, rashes, migraines, seizures, kidney problems, repeated sepsis and immune-system reactions requiring hospitalization. She was subsequently diagnosed with acquired von Willebrand disease, a rare bleeding disorder. Last year, Brown granted a preliminary injunction allowing Sarah to attend 11th grade without receiving a third hepatitis B dose after multiple physicians advised against further vaccination and evidence indicated she had experienced a severe reaction to an earlier dose. For the 2026-2027 school year, however, Sarah sought exemptions from both the remaining hepatitis B dose and a required meningococcal vaccination. Brown concluded that the circumstances had materially changed because two vaccines were now involved and found the medical documentation supporting an exemption from the meningococcal vaccine insufficient. Dr. Carlos Rivera testified that Sarah qualified for an exemption in his professional judgment, but Brown noted that Rivera had not personally examined or spoken with Sarah or reviewed laboratory testing, and he found that the submitted documents did not identify a specific contraindication to the meningococcal vaccine. Sarah’s attorney, Sujata Gibson, disputes the court’s reasoning, saying nine doctors and specialists have recommended deferring vaccination and arguing that the school district failed to adequately pursue additional medical information before denying the accommodation. Gibson contends that the case implicates protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and says the family will seek immediate appellate review. The underlying lawsuit also alleges violations of New York Public Health Law and the family’s First Amendment rights, allegations the school district disputes. Brown additionally questioned whether the dispute belongs in federal court at all, pointing to a state administrative and judicial review process for medical-exemption disputes, and ordered both sides to brief that jurisdictional issue. Sarah will turn 18 within several months, after which the article says New York’s school vaccination documentation requirements for children would no longer apply to her. Children’s Health Defense is funding the litigation, making the article both a report on the ruling and an account from an organization directly involved in supporting Sarah’s case.
Special Guest: Anna Bazarnaya
My name is Anna Bazarnaya. I am an intuitive healer, an artist, a gardener, a distiller, an alchemist, a plant communicator, and a passionate environmentalist. My path is deeply rooted in seeking to understand human pain and suffering. My professional development occurred through my own personal healing journey after decades of abusive relationships, limiting beliefs, eating disorders, and physical challenges, including chronic fatigue, adrenal burnout, and candida overgrowth.
While healing myself on a physical level with nutritional protocols, and herbal medicine, I turned to deep emotional healing with the use of flower essences, aromatherapy, Yungian psychology and experiential therapy combined with other healing modalities and energy work. During my three year stay in Costa Rica, I re-discovered my childhood gift of plant communication that allows me to understand the energy and power of each plant’s archetype and match it to the energy, challenges, and needs of every client.
I combined my professional training with a gift of empathy, intuitive abilities and plant spirit communication and created a protocol that allows access to the core emotional wounds and brings them to the surface for healing through the use of flower essences. The process is supported by the True Self psychological aromatherapy formulas. This is an experience-based process of developing embodied awareness. Clients actively participate in their healing process utilizing the power of their feelings and emotions, rather than a passive approach of book knowledge that involves the mind and logic but lacks practical application.
I am passionate about sharing my gifts and knowledge, helping people heal their core wounds and reconnect to their true essence through the essences of plants.
Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!
Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Narcissus pseudonarcissus, commonly known as Daffodil.
Boericke highlights symptoms of nausea followed by violent vomiting and diarrhoea, along with cough, bronchitis, frontal headache, coryza, and the convulsive stage of whooping-cough. The skin picture includes erythema of a papular, vesicular, and pustular type, especially aggravated in wet weather.
Download the Information Sheet
Hour 2
Special Guest: Michael Boldin
The Only Cure for a Corrupted Republic Michael Boldin argues that restoring what he describes as the foundational principles of the American Revolution is the only durable response to a republic whose constitutional structure has become corrupted. Drawing heavily on Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams and other founding-era figures, Boldin defines corruption not primarily as individual bribery or misconduct, but as government abandoning the principles and constitutional limits on which it was established. He organizes his argument around six principles: natural rights, the invalidity of unconstitutional government actions, popular sovereignty, the people’s authority to judge governmental overreach, resistance to dangerous precedents and zero tolerance for arbitrary power. First, Boldin argues that natural rights exist independently of government and constitutional documents, with government established to secure rather than create those rights. Second, he invokes founding-era arguments that government actions exceeding constitutionally delegated authority are void rather than legitimate simply because officials enacted them. Third, he emphasizes popular sovereignty, arguing that final political authority rests with the people rather than government institutions. Fourth, he maintains that government cannot be the exclusive judge of the boundaries of its own authority, drawing particularly on Jefferson’s arguments surrounding the Kentucky Resolutions. Fifth, Boldin warns about precedent, arguing that tolerating even seemingly minor exercises of unauthorized power creates foundations for larger expansions later. Finally, he presents noncompliance with arbitrary or unconstitutional authority as an essential element of the American revolutionary tradition, citing statements from Alexander Hamilton, James Otis Jr. and the First Continental Congress. Boldin rejects the idea that America’s problems can primarily be solved by electing different political personnel while leaving the underlying concentration of governmental power intact. His conclusion draws again on Montesquieu’s warning that a corrupted republic must restore its original principles rather than continually attempt new corrective measures within the corrupted system. The article is a constitutional and libertarian argument rather than a neutral historical survey, and several of its conclusions about the proper interpretation and enforcement of constitutional limits represent the Tenth Amendment Center’s particular philosophy of decentralized government and popular resistance.
Suffolk Resolves: The Revolution’s Blueprint for Beating an Empire Michael Boldin presents the Suffolk Resolves of September 1774 as one of the most important practical turning points in the American resistance to British rule, arguing that the document transformed colonial opposition from petitions and protests into an organized program of noncompliance. Written principally by physician and revolutionary leader Joseph Warren and approved by representatives from Suffolk County, Massachusetts, the Resolves were carried by Paul Revere to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Congress endorsed them on September 17, 1774. Boldin emphasizes that the Resolves were a response to Britain’s Coercive Acts, known to Americans as the Intolerable Acts, which followed the Boston Tea Party and included restrictions on Massachusetts government and the closing of Boston’s port. Rather than merely asking Parliament to reverse course, the Suffolk Resolves declared the measures unconstitutional and urged colonists not to cooperate with their enforcement. The program included withholding tax payments from the reorganized Massachusetts government, refusing to recognize officials operating under the altered system, supporting officials who lost their positions for resisting British policies, economically boycotting British goods and encouraging local communities to organize militias and prepare themselves militarily. The Resolves nevertheless professed loyalty to King George III, illustrating the transitional nature of the resistance in 1774, nearly two years before independence was declared. Boldin treats this combination of economic pressure, political noncooperation and local organization as a strategic blueprint that eventually made British rule increasingly difficult to enforce. He argues that its importance extends beyond its immediate historical circumstances because it demonstrates how resistance can operate without waiting for centralized political institutions to provide permission. The article’s broader message reflects the Tenth Amendment Center’s modern philosophy of nullification and decentralized resistance: centralized power depends substantially on cooperation from states, local governments and individuals, so coordinated refusal to cooperate can undermine policies without first winning control of the central government. While that modern application is Boldin’s interpretation, the historical Suffolk Resolves did represent an important escalation in colonial resistance and received formal approval from the First Continental Congress.
You Don’t Have “2nd Amendment Rights.” You Just Have Rights. Michael Boldin argues that describing the right to keep and bear arms as a “Second Amendment right” reverses the founding-era understanding of natural rights because, in his interpretation, the Second Amendment does not create or grant the right but instead prohibits government from infringing a preexisting right. His argument begins with the amendment’s language and then places it within a broader natural-rights philosophy expressed by figures including John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, Tench Coxe, James Wilson and St. George Tucker. Boldin contends that the underlying principle is self-defense, which the founders regarded as connected to the natural rights of life, liberty and property. He cites Samuel Adams’s description of the right to defend those interests and Roger Sherman’s 1790 statement that citizens possess a right to bear arms and resist attacks upon liberty or property. Because Sherman’s statement preceded ratification of the Second Amendment, Boldin uses it to support his contention that contemporaries understood the right as existing independently of the constitutional text. He similarly cites Tench Coxe’s founding-era defense of an armed citizenry and contrasts the American system with the English Bill of Rights, under which Protestant subjects could possess arms subject to legal conditions. Much of the article relies on James Wilson’s 1791 lectures concerning natural rights and self-defense. Boldin interprets Wilson as maintaining that government exists to protect natural rights but cannot eliminate the individual’s inherent authority to defend life, liberty and property when government cannot provide protection. St. George Tucker’s description of self-defense as a “palladium of liberty” supplies another foundation for Boldin’s argument that civilian arms serve as a check on governmental power as well as a means of individual defense. Boldin ultimately argues that calling the right a “Second Amendment right” can inadvertently imply that government created it and therefore possesses authority to define its boundaries. This is a natural-rights and originalist interpretation advanced by the Tenth Amendment Center, not a complete description of current Second Amendment law. Modern constitutional doctrine recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms while also addressing the constitutionality of particular firearm regulations through Supreme Court precedent.
Government Welfare Makes Things Worse: Benjamin Franklin’s Forgotten Warning Michael Boldin uses Benjamin Franklin’s writings about eighteenth-century English poor relief to argue that government welfare can unintentionally increase dependency and poverty by weakening incentives for individuals to save, work and prepare for future hardship. The article begins with James Madison’s statement that “charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government,” which Boldin uses to support his separate constitutional argument that the modern federal welfare state exceeds the federal government’s enumerated powers. The primary historical focus, however, is Franklin’s observations after traveling through Europe and examining systems for supporting the poor. Franklin argued that places providing more extensive public assistance sometimes appeared to produce greater dependency, while populations receiving less government provision had stronger incentives to provide for themselves. Boldin contrasts voluntary institutions such as hospitals and charitable almshouses with England’s compulsory poor-law system, which taxed property owners to finance assistance. He also cites seventeenth-century writer Richard Dunning, who reported substantial increases in parish expenditures for poor relief, using those figures to illustrate the historical growth of welfare costs. Franklin attributed part of the problem to incentives. In his view, guaranteed public support during sickness or old age could diminish incentives for industry, frugality and saving while healthy and working. Boldin takes this observation considerably further, describing government welfare as a “poverty engine” that can perpetuate the problem it is intended to alleviate. He then returns to constitutional questions, citing Madison’s characterization of the federal government as one confined to specified purposes and arguing that nationwide welfare programs fall outside those purposes. The article is therefore both a historical account of Franklin’s criticism of England’s poor laws and a modern libertarian argument against federal welfare programs. Franklin’s writings demonstrate that he expressed serious concern about poorly designed assistance creating dependency, but Boldin’s broader conclusion that government welfare inherently makes poverty worse is an interpretation rather than a finding established by Franklin’s observations alone. Modern research on welfare programs reaches differing conclusions depending on the specific program, population, incentives, benefit structure and outcome being measured.
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
