Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

URGENT: Congressional Bill Introduced to Ban Unvaccinated Individuals From ALL U.S. Flights


Folks, we knew this was coming.

It was only a question of when.

Despite the jubilant news of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s resignation, something more sinister has slipped through the cracks in New York news.

Democrat Ritchie Torres from New York’s 15th Congressional District introduced H.R. 4980.

If passed into law, the bill forbids any individual to board a flight departing from or arriving to any airport in the United States or its territories.

Essentially, without the experimental COVID-19 jab, you can’t fly domestically or internationally.

Want to fly across the country to visit family?


Want to skip the pond to enjoy a holiday in Europe?


Need to return to the United States from abroad?


Without the experimental COVID-19 jab, this bill forbids it.

It falls in lockstep with the Great Reset agenda to restrict the movement of us, the peasants.

Here’s a link to the bill, which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security:

As of 08/12/2021 text has not been received for H.R.4980 – To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that any individual traveling on a flight that departs from or arrives to an airport inside the United States or a territory of the United States is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and for other purposes.

If you’d like to voice your disapproval of Torres’ disgusting bill that discriminates against half of American citizens, you can call his Washington D.C. and Bronx District offices.

Here’s a petition to stop this piece of garbage:

Dear Senate, Congress, Committee:

We The People voice our objection to HR4980.

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, “Sovereignty and use of airspace”, the Code specifies that “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”

A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current Court-fashioned concepts of federalism.

You will be discriminating against millions of people by doing this.

This will violate the  5th amendment and 14th amendment rights.  It violates our 5th amendment right by depriving of The People of  liberty without due process of law and it violates The People’s right to equal protection under the law. It states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution’s “privileges and immunities” clause had only vaguely been determined.[5] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[6][7] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler’s reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White’s conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),

(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the “Privileges and Immunities” clause in Article IV, § 2), and

(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, “the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.”).

In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’ ”

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869) (“without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.”)  Freedom of movement is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

Be It Known that, We The People, command that you cease and desist from this egregious action.  We fought and won WWII over Nazism and Fascism.  This would be like putting a yellow stars on the Jewish people.  You would be forcing US Citizens to violate their right of conscious, religious beliefs and violate their 1st amendment right of freedom of association and needlessly turn law abiding citizens into criminals .

This is out in out racism and discrimination.

I’ve personally signed and recommend anyone who values their freedom to fly without being a Big Pharma lab rat to sign.

Congressman Ritchie Torres bragged about his piece of legislation and outing himself as a Medical Jim Crow supporting fascist.

New York Daily News reported:

Torres (D-N.Y) said Thursday that he was embarking on a push to require that eligible Americans get immunized against COVID-19 for domestic and international air travel, introducing a bill that would cement the rule into law and penning a letter to the Transportation Security Administration pleading for such a policy.

Almost 30% of U.S. adults have not received a single coronavirus vaccine dose, according to federal data, even as the highly contagious delta variant wreaks havoc across swaths of the country.

NATIONAL POLL: Do You Still Have Trump's Back 100%?

“The TSA never allows people to enter planes or airports with a weapon, and the delta variant is a weapon,” Torres, who represents a Bronx congressional district, told the Daily News. “It is a threat to everyone in an airport and everyone on a plane.”

In the letter sent Thursday to the TSA and to the Department of Homeland Security — which has authority over the TSA — Torres described the mandate as a “commonsense step.”

Torres, the vice chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told The News he was pushing for administrative action because “legislation takes time.”

But he added that he would lobby his colleagues on the need for swift action. He said he planned to introduce his bill on Friday.

A survey published in June by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, found that around 40% of respondents who were considering shots said they would be more likely to get the jabs if they were required to travel in airplanes. Currently, passengers on domestic fights are required to wear masks.

Torres’ push to get the vaccine into the arms of reluctant U.S. travelers comes as the pandemic enters a turbulent new phase.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!