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.


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 , 313 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.


View with responses (opens new window)