How Tennessee Stands Lost The High Ground
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2021-04-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 316 references Ignore this thread
How Tennessee Stands Lost The High Ground
[Comments enabled]

They did, you know.

They had proposed and got introduced bills to block any sort of vaccine passport in Tennessee.

But I identified a problem with their strategy while attending a rally in Knoxville this summer related to the mask mandates and business closures, and despite attempting to get through to them that they were going down the wrong road they decided to pursue it anyway.

I know a bit about this, having dealt with it directly in relationship to the Tea Party.  Indeed, while I did not "form it" as some have claimed I was one of the people who recommended sending tea bags to Congress, and interestingly enough CNBC's Rick Santelli seemed to show up with a bunch of them on a trading floor shortly thereafter too.

I spoke at the first of the Tea Party's tax day events in Niceville, where I resided at the time.  I was invited up on the stage to give a speech, and did, and then gave a few more across the State.  But within the space of a year what was unmistakable momentum in tackling corruption and government bailouts of the banksters turned into mush, and I abandoned the group.

Note the date on that linked article.

Let me underline the problem for you:

These are issues such as abortion and gay rights (in all it's forms, including marriage debates), but is by no means limited to these two.  In short, if there's a religious basis for your position, you must not campaign on it, and indeed you must pointedly refuse to discuss it.

Tennessee Stands made this same mistake and it's why they lost in the legislature.  It matters not if you're personally convicted when it comes to your religious beliefs.  The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone is and beyond the Constitutional infirmity found in the First Amendment attempting to play that wedge issue game is both dangerous and, for other than one of the two major political parties, stupid.

Stupid?  Yep.

The reason it's stupid is that it gives anyone on either side a perfectly-valid reason to kill your bill or otherwise marginalize you.  They only need compare you against the Branch Davidians or other similar kooks and you're done; it matters not whether the charge is valid, especially in today's cancel culture.  You cannot appeal to science when your argument is rooted in blind faith, and religion is always blind faith.  Nobody can prove a particular set of religious beliefs are "right" or "wrong" and thus you open up an unnecessary and foolish line of attack on your positions.

Stands had the facts and the science behind them; they're irrefutable.  The data was clear and convincing, and there was literally no way to argue with it since the data was compiled and released by the very government organs involved.  Further, the Constitution and the Nuremburg Code are clear too; neither admits room for such a debate and the latter is International Law, even though we as Americans give said law the finger on a regular basis.

Never mind that the law is clear on EUA'd anything; it must be truly voluntary with no coercion or it's illegal.  Period.  State and private entities that act in violation of this are fully exposed not only for actual damages but for fees, costs and potentially punitive damages as well.  Adding a state-level imprint on such an activity could reasonably be expected to lead to severe consequences for the entity involved (e.g. a state-funded university) not only under federal law but under existing state law as well.

Might this litigation result in a loss?  Sure.  What else is new?  Courts these days routinely ignore the law and have forever; what part of shall not be infringed is hard to understand?  As such putting into black-letter statute what is already the only logical place you can end up with what you have now is never a bad idea; while it is not a tonic that guarantees results it's still a damn good thing to do.

Codifying the right of conscience when it comes to medical treatments into the law is not a religious argument.  It may well embody said purposes but it neither begins or is bounded by same, nor does it rest there.  Vaccinations, along with other medical treatments and devices, are for the benefit of the user or recipient and must always be evaluated on that basis alone in a free society because each and every person has access to same and thus may make such a determination for themselves.  This in turn voids any argument that one has an "obligation" for the sake of others since all such "others" may avail themselves of said protection to the extent they believe they want or need it, and the potential risks of said disease are exceeded by the potential rewards of the mitigation.  To argue otherwise is to argue directly against the entire premise on which this nation is founded; that all are endowed with unalienable rights and that no person has rights that are superior to those of another.  This is not a circumstance of pollution where one unwillingly imposes risk on others; each person may choose their own form and effectiveness of mitigation against disease for themselves and, having done so, is personally and solely responsible for the results.  Indeed to argue otherwise is to argue that I have an obligation to protect you against something you will not act upon yourself.  That turns both basic logic and equal protection under the law on its ear.

Further, if you wish to argue otherwise one must first begin by removing every single illegal alien in this nation and state because exactly zero of them, by their status, can prove they've been vaccinated against anything whatsoever -- including multiple diseases that are far more dangerous than Covid-19.  Yet I see no evidence anywhere among Tennessee lawmakers or law enforcement to do exactly that.  Rather, my protection against an illegal invader with a contagious disease rests in my hands through my own voluntary decision to be vaccinated against that disease.  The responsibility lies with me in each and every case -- and not the other person.  Were this not the case I could sue WalMart for letting illegal aliens shop in their stores if I contracted measles and that transmission was plausibly linked to said illegal alien being in the store as a customer, and WalMart would be liable if they did not force everyone who came in the door to prove their measles vaccination status prior to entry.

Codifying that this is impermissible as is any demand I show proof of vaccination as a matter of state law is not a leap of faith.  In fact it is the current state of affairs for diseases that are far more deadly than Covid-19, it is common sense and requires nothing more that said common sense to insert a civil and criminal legal bar on coercion into the statute books so the black letter of the law conforms with how we have in fact lived, worked, worshipped, shopped and recreated for the last hundred+ years.

Rather than argue from a basis of science, common sense, precedent or existing law, however, they instead imbued their argument with religion.  This was a fatal error and it cost them what was otherwise a very good chance, in fact they destroyed an overwhelming and irrefutable argument that likely would have led to success.  Rather than go after the faux "scientists" from Vanderbilt and pharma who have been consistently wrong since last March and prove it with their own data, shoving it up their ass sideways and then breaking it off, filing FOIAs and even suing which then allows them to issue subpoenas in discovery at all of these institutions they instead appealed to God.

Well, God did not grant their prayer, nor did the legislature.

Not that it really matters.  As has become apparent Covid-19 is following the path of all respiratory viruses.  Coronaviruses have an odd history in terms of mutational capacity and absent imperfect immune pressure quickly devolve into more easily-spread and less-virulent strains.  SARS didn't "leave" due to containment measures; it was simply too virulent and made people so-violently ill that in its original form it was doomed to fail as people shun those who are violently sick once they know a deadly virus is going around.  But this basic reality of coronaviruses is why there are four endemic versions that have circulated for a very long time and cause colds and mild flus.  There are now five; Covid-19 is very near, if not at, this point.  I've been watching the uploaded sequencing that is occasionally done and the same sort of mutations are now independently arising in different places.  This means that the virus has run out of interesting differential natural mutations and has basically completed its transition into an endemic virus we shall never be rid of, but which is also no longer of material concern.  The places that are getting pounded today (e.g. Michigan, etc.) are and have been doing it exactly backward; by masking and shutting things down along with screwing schools they've shifted cases to more-vulnerable people and put immune pressure on the virus resulting in more death rather than less.

We can of course continue to put imperfect immune pressure on Covid and we might pull the black ball doing it -- that is still quite possible, and in fact the are indications that its happening.  I have two anecdotal reports on my system now that raised my eyebrows, both indicating that exactly this is occurring right here, right now, and both of them, if they're real, were caused by jabbing people wildly with an experimental, non-sterilizing drug -- an insanely and criminally stupid act that should have never occurred for anyone other than those at specifically high risk.  If we get hammered with this it's not happenstance; we will have caused it by being stupid and if so then every organization and individual promoting same deserves a long walk off a short pier while wearing cement shoes.

Our President and other "leaders" on both sides of the aisle are either wildly and fatally ignorant or criminally corrupt in this enterprise.  It doesn't really matter which when you get down to it.  Viruses do not give a wet crap about your stupidity; they respond to evolutionary pressure as do all other organisms.  Putting your thumb on the scale when it comes to those at specific high risk makes sense, but doing so generally has now been conclusively proved as stupid and non-productive by the data out of Israel.  There is no value to be had in mass-vaccination but there is risk, and if it's realized you will not like the outcome -- either personally or on a societal basis.

But despite that fact organizations seeking to stop stupid acts, whether they be banksters robbing the public or idiotic proclamations coming from so-called 'academics' that have been serially wrong for over a year destroy their influence and ability to obtain results as soon as they wrap themselves in the robes of Christ.

Such it was with the Tea Party, and such it is now once again with Tennessee Stands.

smiley

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info How Tennessee Stands Lost The High Ground in forum [Market-Ticker]
Nadavegan
Posts: 306
Incept: 2017-05-03

The South
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The lawsuit proceeding in North Carolina is at risk of following the same lines. I went to their info meeting a couple weeks ago, and in the midst of talking about vaccine passports and such, someone started going on about abortion. I wanted to shout at the whole room: "This is not how winning is done! Keep focused on the task at hand." By and large, this is the problem with Christians in the public sphere - they want it all, and they want it now. They won't go for a number of small incremental victories because they see that as compromising their position. And then they lose.
Augeries
Posts: 182
Incept: 2019-09-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Religion has no place in government. I especially hate to see politicians, police, military, etc. adding religious garb to uniforms and wearing during official proceedings. It only proves their bias in positions where there must be none allowed.

Are you a member of Congress? Then when you are in session, you must remove those symbols. If you are wearing a uniform, remove them. Public school teacher? Off for your work day. A crucifix around the neck? Turban and beard? Hijab? Those round hat things? TAKE IT OFF. You are in a public position and you will respect that by shedding your bias while on duty. If you can't do that then don't sign up for a public service job. There are other careers out there.

----------
I'm Team Virus. It Deserves to Win.

The World is Quiet Here
Whitehat
Posts: 4560
Incept: 2017-06-27

Elsewhere
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
it is interesting the two parallels that arise here.

our proposed system of natural rights as constitutionally recognized in the rule of law sound good on paper. However few really demand to have such a society.

Many of the Christian religions, using Roman Catholicism here only for example not to be pilloried, suffer from a similar problem.

In its requirements the Catholic rules of life are a beautiful way to live and quite consistent, although many fail to live up to these ideals by conscious choice. They are completely consistent with a rule of law society and our form of government requiring an individual bear the consequences of following his morality in public and private life ALONE. There is no justification for their violation in the realities of the outside world.

However (bad way to start a paragraph, i know), in both examples of country culture and personal religion a great majority have chosen symbolism to give themselves pass and acceptance. By being a member, one is good. This is the ultimate triumph of the unregulated ego. Seeming is being.

This explains the problem in both. It is easier to preach that others be bound by one's supposed personal morality as symbolic membership requires mass membership and group conformity for people to feel safe. They are safe to be the selfish and hypocritical individuals that they are within the curtain and protection of the larger group symbolism.

It is the moral and brave man who lives his values regardless of personal loss. These values can be of country culture and religion. He must resolve any conflicts between the two. Interestingly there is no conflict between following Catholic teaching (notice that it was not written as, "being a Catholic."), and following the country culture. Perhaps there is some perfection in our system of government as proposed.

This is why it defies belief for some people here that the Catholic Church can take a moral stand regarding homosexuality and still be a left-wing agent of evil or tolerate in society and its halls terrible immorality. It is rather easy to explain. In selecting a wedge issue, as described by Karl above, it energizes the symbolism of its members and allows them safe harbor parroting the party line which they often do in form only. Karl and I have said for many decades that only a minuscule number of Catholics follow the sexual teachings anyway. They, however, can hold this supposed moral certainty over the society as a neutralizing effect for any criticism. See, they are good because they aspire, not do, and cannot be judged individually. They collectively (where the individualist hides) guilt the other party to deflect criticism. The true Catholic lives his values personally regardless of the cost to himself.

This is why the Catholic Church conveniently ignores public sinning where it is obviously apparent and long ago abandoned the public morals story that a man is always a Catholic even if it costs him his position or livelihood or both. This is no longer necessary as these original stories of five decades ago only served to sell themselves to a doubting culture not completely accepting of them.

Curious that many of our public representatives have religious roots in the Catholic Church.

"Mr. Citizen went to church. He never missed a Sunday. Mr. Citizen went to hell for what he did on Monday," a Catholic priest who was once a family friend.

Our country is not much different in that it has rules. Whereas the Catholic can show up at Sunday services and do all of the other things that show that they are Catholic. It is in many cases demonstrating that they are members in the middle class. Our country can be run in the same way. People look for symbols as opposed to personal actions. Fly a flag, say the right things, show material success regardless of how acquired, but never hold oneself to any particular values and expect the same as others. If the economy is doing well, that is the standard not how good we are as a country. Follow authority and respect them and one's elders regardless of their morality or correctness or consistency with the rule of the constitutional laws.

People with an agenda have been draping themselves in the flag for as long as this republic has existed. Fly a flag but never fight for the values behind it as it is only a symbol to keep one's group membership.

People value individual success for themselves, thus will not hold leaders, powerful business interests to high standard as to criticize them would be to criticize themselves.

How many parents figure (or say) that their children will turn out better if they go to Catholic schools. Maybe by accident, but the operative variable is to appear better and shed responsibility for the vast majority. People look for symbols and outside control when they have not imposed it upon themselves.

The law each and every day takes away more and more freedoms. Why, people do not want to be responsible for themselves and fear that other can handle this responsibility, making them look bad. The origins of this country's gun laws find themselves in New York City with the Sullivan Laws. In the earliest days of this country a group of Catholic immigrants publicly stated that they cannot have the natural right of personal deadly force as they did not want to bear the personal responsibility for themselves. And, quite frankly, the greater society realized its horror of lesser morality people coming to dominate. Lesser personal morality, that is.

What one does not start, one does not finish.

Our founders realized that they were fleeing the group symbolism of Old Europe and its group rejection of personal responsibility and its ultimate end in loss of personal autonomy. It was their hope that men bearing the ultimate responsibility for themselves would lead by example, not arbitrary laws, courts and corruption and rule by elites of all stripes. They would lead by personal example under an umbrella of natural rights and responsibility.

The Old World came here, and sadly it long before failed to live up to its own values of personal accountability from which the founders developed their ideals. Yes, they sought to bring the best of the Old World morality here.

Interestingly, Catholicism finds itself in the same pickle. There is so much potential, however so few people find themselves capable of living up to its truest ideals.

Our country is failing because we have failed as a people in that individualist trap.

Libertarians are just as guilty when they figure that they can get away with something because the system is broken. They find symbolic shelter in their claims to wanting a rule of law constitutional republic and arguing for the same. All this while many play the system and break laws with which they do not agree.

Here is a challenge for all the Christians of all sorts, especially Libertarians, constitutionalists, conservatives, especially Catholics, whatever you are that claims to have absolutist morals. Follow every personal rule and law and every societal law to the letter and spirit, no exceptions. Don't tell anyone, just do it. In the rare instances of (actually very rare) conflict accept with dignity the consequences of personal being given priority.

How does this play out? Hi Mr. Libertarian roofing contractor, you are about to make sure that all of your employees are legally hired according to the letter of the law and account for all of you past transgressions whatever the cost. Interestingly the Catholic religion that many follow requires you to do this. A state assistant prosecutor who knows that a prosecution is unlawful and/or not based in evidence better stand up for what is right by his religion's morals and actually his duty of position. Funny how the two work together and formerly found these moral dilemmas played in the cinema during the acceptance phase of a particular religion. Notice how personal this really is and requires that one merely mind his own business. Even the mundane, there is a sign in the street that say a limit of speed travel; follow it. Last that i checked prostitution and many sexual services are illegal in the vast majority of places here. If it is illegal, do not find ways to "do it" until one can argue publicly and successfully that the law should be changed. Oh yea, it is easier to skirt the laws (oh that was droll) rather than change them, or follow. But, you are a good Christian because you show the group signs of being one.

Where do we go from the above exercise. Amazingly institutions from corporations to small businesses to families start stopping the buck on corruption in a shockwave. Eventually people start noticing that the lack of the rule of law and morals is screwing up their lives. Various processes start where every law is evaluated and some discarded, others enforced.

Rule of law and morality, or else what. Funny how all of this symbolism is leading to more and more hell in your lives. Are you truly ready for hell? When there are no more self-imposed rules based in people's personal moral standards that they hold themselves to YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

We already got a taste of this hell. The Catholic Church with all of its high ideas managed to create the ultimate injustice against the most innocent and defenseless. What else is it capable of, has done or will do? Our country follows the same parallel. Right now it is annoying and has done some seriously bad things in its history. Want to know the future?

It is all your fault because you pretended to be Americans and lawful people in symbolism. Same with the various Christian groups, as they went with the masses as opposed to accountability, the Catholics appearing to be the worst offenders.

Oh yea, homosexuality is bad and evil and gay marriage is immoral. Yes, it is according to some belief systems. And so it being a lay administrator or professional contractor in a Catholic institution helping to cover up the scandals for a few pieces of silver.

Disease is a horrible thing, and some poor souls suffer due to their conditions. For profit and cowardice one does not tell the truth, especially in a position of power and authority or worse yet economic advantage, and commits innumerable violations of natural rights, laws and morality.

The people cannot demand better of their religious leaders or their elected and appointed officials because they do not do so of themselves.

Welcome to Hell.

Thank you Karl for allowing us this forum to express ideas and opinion while providing some of the most honest and accurate information the world has ever seen. The country should one day declare all of your writings a National Treasure.

----------
smiley

"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven," Satan's monologue in the first book of John Milton's Paradise Lost
Step55
Posts: 124
Incept: 2009-02-27

Connecticut - Massachusetts
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It is possible to debate a person's 5 basic senses but any argument including faith has no possible positive outcome. Over the last millennia this has never changed and will not now.
Whitehat
Posts: 4560
Incept: 2017-06-27

Elsewhere
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Augeries -- i did not down vote your comment, however i deeply disagree with you. One must stand for what he believes in all venues in which he serves, or else he is a fraud. If he cannot serve the law because of his beliefs, perhaps he is in the wrong place.

A man can follow the laws and constitution even if his personal morality forbids him from taking part in its benefits. The Amish, my cousins per se, reject firearms ownership and right of violent personal defense but do not begrudge people exercising their constitutional rights.

Additionally a leader of differing morality who does not wish to take away people's rights is doing a service if he openly disagrees with something and tries to convince, not legislate, people to consider his morality by the power of the spoken word and moral example alone.

this is why there are fifty state laboratories. As long as the basics are accepted, different value groups can have their try at community standards.

When people tell me that their community is so conservative and that they want to ban certain things such as prostitution, sexual services and drugs like alcohol i ask if there is such agreement on said morality, why is there enough demand to support said vices. Perhaps they do not really know their own fellow community members and have not done enough to convince them by example and free and open exchange of ideas and opinion.

It used to be considered an art to politely disagree with someone and not get a physical fight, shooting or lingering hatred. But, it required that one listen to people and have manners and respect. The polite society that we lost when we respected our carnal nature was more about love than it is now.

This is sad.

----------
smiley

"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven," Satan's monologue in the first book of John Milton's Paradise Lost
Veeger
Posts: 108
Incept: 2013-02-13

Washington state
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
While I do have a strong Christian faith and may even be loosely categorized as Evangelical, this Ticker is spot on. When religion turns to politics, only bad things can come of it. Politics are driven by convictions (or the lack thereof) and mine do come from my faith but I also think, that like Karl, facts matter and logic with common sense can win and needs to be heard. Just remember though, emotions tend to obscure facts. The media and the D's count on this and play accordingly.

But when you enter the political arena, you must play by (if not the rules), then at least the known strategies for winning. It's hard ball, it's focused and it should take no prisoners. Of course, that's how the D's play, and they don't even care about the rules, because the rule is 'win at all cost'. The R's and the naive religious crowd don't think it 'should' be that way. Well, there ya go!
Aquapura
Posts: 1789
Incept: 2012-04-19

Unfree State of MN
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Religion as a basis of a political party platform is going to be a losing position due to demographic shifts. I literally read just the other day that less than half of Americans belong to a church. We can debate why the country has moved away from religion but the fact remains that soon as you sell your politics as being tied to religion (no matter what faith) you are in a minority. National elections will never again be won on any platform of faith or religion.

There still are districts and states where religion can win elections but what is there to gain? You can't legislate faith. Some pol from "God's country" isn't going to legislate Californian's take up Christian values. Meanwhile we have a bunch of politicians claiming to be conservative-christians where in fact they are just liberals that go to church. But those pols will point to the stuff they add to bills as their religious credentials to kow-tow to a voting bloc...when they know damn well their moves will kill legislation they want killed.

All those *******s in dee-cee are enemies of the people. Does not matter if they are placating the church goers or the LGBTQYZ groups or ANTIFA or whoever. They are all part of their own club and we are outsiders. Now take your experimental jab sheep!
Abelardlindsey
Posts: 49
Incept: 2021-03-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
How does the actual law concerning EUA vaccines extend to the airlines? Could Delta or United require some sort of "vaccine passport" in order to fly? I don't think Southwest would do this. But I wonder about United and American, in particular? I flew a lot in my previous job as well as for holiday.
Tickerguy
Posts: 172595
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Remember @Abelardlindsey - The law does not matter in this US anymore.

Until and unless someone sues they will do whatever the hell they want, law be damned, and frequently there is no recourse to the law even when you're right.

Read my previous column on exactly this point.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=....

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Abelardlindsey
Posts: 49
Incept: 2021-03-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Either that or I just fly Southwest whenever I can (which is what I do anyways). Southwest is my first choice and Delta is second choice. I'm not that worried about it. Ticketmaster announced in December that they were going require vaccination to attend concerts and other events that they manage. The push-back they got was sufficient that they quietly dropped this policy about a month later. I think it will be the same for the airlines (and hotel chains). I have not seen any such announcement by VRBO (we do VRBO for all of our holiday travel - hotels are for business travel).

BTW, American Airlines' CEO (Doug Parker) is a ninny, and i will not fly his airline if I can avoid it.
Vernonb
Posts: 2541
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Too many Christian leaders do this because of one reason - the arrogance of spiritual pride. They refuse to use logic and science believing it gives then some type of holy mantle to further influence and fleece the sheep.

The argument isn't being lost necessarily by ignorance but by spiritual pride.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Cr8nmake
Posts: 6
Incept: 2016-02-13

Chicago
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I was never the kid in class to raise their hand to speak for the sake of speaking and my comments on here are few...

This post is fantastic - like all your posts, this is extremely well said.

And, while singing praises, your idea of a hedge fund, funding a trial of Ivermectin while shorting a few pharma companies is brilliant. He seems to be past his ruthless phase but this sounds right up SAC's alley...maybe an up-and-comer will pick up on it.
Clyde
Posts: 101
Incept: 2009-08-19

Clinton, massachusetts
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Apologize Karl, off topic but appropriate for today's news.

Well seems like my days to build riles for my own personal use is over according to a Biden EO. **** him no EO can supersede the 2nd, and i will not allow it to be infringed. Problem is will I be able to buy the parts or do the
gun parts manufacturers and gun parts sites selling them bow to the EO.
Won't they have back-down or face jail. It will take GOA and others a while to run these thru the courts.

Trump kinda got this ball rolling when he did an EO for bump stocks.
which by the way a court just decided they are not a machine gun part.

2nd amendment ?.

Does the 2nd allow for regulation.

Biden said today addressing the 2nd. No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.

----------
It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Samuel Adams
Tdurden
Posts: 1070
Incept: 2015-01-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
One of the (MANY) problems with the public is the "trust the expert" mindset. Sadly, "expert" is applied to any ****ing moron in a lab coat. The same level of "expert" who will say that x level of rice and/or bread is acceptable for a type 2 diabetic when x is any level above zero. That's got to be right up there with telling a hardcore alcoholic that one or 2 drinks a day is just fine or letting the Devil run an AA meeting

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Babylon 5
Cheetah9
Posts: 46
Incept: 2021-02-15

Northern Alabama
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Whitehat - Excellent post. Very well said. I personally couldn't agree anymore. To add to your sentiments and speaking as life long Catholic, I am reminded of Matthew 6:5-8 (DRA)

5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.

6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.

7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

8 Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.

Omegapoint
Posts: 7
Incept: 2020-12-26

San Diego
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Never mind that the law is clear on EUA'd anything; it must be truly voluntary with no coercion or it's illegal. Period. State and private entities that act in violation of this are fully exposed not only for actual damages but for fees, costs and potentially punitive damages as well.


Yet, there are several prominent universities that require the Covid "vaccine" before allowing students to attend on campus. I'm sure they've had their lawyers review the law before making this decision. What do they see in the law that makes them believe this decision would stand in court? I get that there is no "rule of law" anymore but I doubt their lawyers gave their OK for the Covid "vaccine" requirement based on that. Is it because, as an individual, you have a choice to attend or not attend that university and if you choose to attend, you must follow their rules for entry and attendance?

I'm not aware of any lawsuits against these universities. I certainly hope there are some or will be soon.
Tickerguy
Posts: 172595
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nope @Omegapoint and, to the extent those are PUBLIC universities (receive ANY public funding) there is quite a bit of danger here.

Said suits will come; so far as I know all these have been "announcements" at this point for fall semester.

IMHO this will collapse like a house of cards.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Chromehill
Posts: 176
Incept: 2010-03-03

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Omegapoint - You can get a lawyer to agree with your position, no matter what it is if you pay them enough money. If a student files a lawsuit, the University can drop the requirement and avoid paying damages. During this time, many students will get the jab.

----------
"Power, like the reproductive muscle, longs to be exercised, often without judgement or right" - Gerry Spence
Tickerguy
Posts: 172595
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Exactly.

This is coercion-by-threat but it's generally not actionable; you can't sue them for running their yap in this form, only for actually doing it -- and they know it.

What you can do in response, however, which is also not actionable, is point out that someone may eat the Provost's spouse if anyone they love takes the jab as a result of their coercion and dies.

Put the cards on the table in stark terms where said dickface can see them; make them contemplate the potential outcome of their policy when they are attempting to get to sleep at night.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Nemowillobserve
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-05-17

SFL, hopefully sailing soon
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
What does anyone make of this Yeadon guy? Former VP of phizer and head of respiratory infection research. He is basically calling bull**** on Vanden Bossche and his variants. He sites this

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/....

Also see transcript of his interview here

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclus....
Tickerguy
Posts: 172595
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nobody really knows.

One of the problems is that we do not routinely sequence. For example, we have now TWO reports here on the forum of people who HAD antibodies and got pounded pretty good with a second infection, and it's pretty clear it got around their existing antibody titer.

How?

If you don't build them (and a small percentage don't) then re-infection does occur. But if you have confirmed antibodies then only evasion explains the second infection.

Discard what is not true and what remains has to be, like it or not.

I do agree that of the sequenced strains I see THUS FAR I conclude that Covid-19 is essentially an endemic virus here and now; the mutation pattern has converged. This is what happens when strains that can propagate have all tried and the "best ones won"; you start to see the same mutations (because they're all that's left) show up in different places at the same time. That's occurring.

BUT -- where is the sequencing on these breakout second infections in people with KNOWN immunity? It's not being done. That, in turn, means that WE DO NOT KNOW because it is not being done. And that is a problem.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.

Nemowillobserve
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-05-17

SFL, hopefully sailing soon
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This is another poorly written summery of possibly the same interview if interested. This one touches on sequencing and cross immunity proven from original sars lasting 17 years. It has links. I should probably just listen to the podcast but Im add and prefer to read.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/for....
Purplefang
Posts: 240
Incept: 2010-03-28

Oklahoma
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I have listened to Dr Yeadon interviews for many hours. He knows his stuff. I have loads of respect for his courage to speak out. He is saying the pandemic is over. We are essentially at herd immunity. There is no justification for mass vaccinations now. Like Karl says people under 60 with good health have almost zero risk from covid. The vaccines have already produced a large pile of dead bodies of people who had little risk from covid. People with health problems should be given the choice. He thinks the variants are not different enough to evade your innate immunity. He admitted he does not understand ADE and he is not considering that. With ADE all the variants have to do is evade the vaccine antibody. If ADE occurs the antibodies help sneak the virus past your innate immunity. Boom! You got a big problem. If ADE happens all the vaccinated are at risk of far worse pandemic than we had before.
Dr Yeadon's big concern is the potential abuse of the vaccines to achieve an evil agenda combined with the passports to coerce people to take the vaccines. If you keep blindly taking mystery injections you could end up infertile, chronically ill, or dead. Are we trusting our health with the same people who have been telling lies since the beginning? The people who would rather watch you die on a ventilator instead of making ivermectin easy to obtain.
Clyde
Posts: 101
Incept: 2009-08-19

Clinton, massachusetts
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Another great reason to move to Tennessee besides the beautiful smokie mnts and some great fishing and hunting. Plus I hear they like to put back a few alcohol beverages. A very solid Red State.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! constitutional carry passed today. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

not a total wash on the 2nd being infringed.

good move (move) Karl.


----------
It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Samuel Adams
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last