Your comment has been submitted.
There was a problem reporting this.
Promoting violence, Karl? Who are you going to punch out? I'll bet your comment gets dumped.
Chesty Puller Jackson - sticking his chest out again - making gorilla noises -- daring someone to knock that planet-sized chip off his shoulder.
“We’re surrounded. That simplifies the problem!” – Chesty Puller
“Great. Now we can shoot at those basttards from every direction.” – Chesty Puller
Reuters Fact Check - April 14, 2021
CLAIM 1 - “All the vaccines are considered experimental”
CLAIM 2 - “All were allowed to skip animal trials”
CLAIM 3 - “None have completed initial research trials”
(All four vaccines given emergency authorization in the U.S. and UK have published results from the final phase three trials. ) Clinical trials will continue.
... COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. and UK are not experimental and have all completed animal and clinical trials. "
Justification for vaccination - for Federal Employees -- is detailed, and abundantly clear in the Sept. 9th Executive order: Titles and briefs follow:
1) Executive Order on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees
"... Each (federal) agency shall implement, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a program to require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees, with exceptions only as required by law. The Task Force shall issue guidance within 7 days of the date of this order on agency implementation of this requirement for all agencies covered by this order."
Also stated clearly in the order: " As of the date of this order, one of the COVID-19 vaccines, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, also known as Comirnaty, has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and two others, the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine, have been authorized by the FDA for emergency use. The FDA has determined that all three vaccines meet its rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality."
2) Executive Order on Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors
"... This order promotes economy and efficiency in Federal procurement by ensuring that the parties that contract with the Federal Government provide adequate COVID-19 safeguards to their workers performing on or in connection with a Federal Government contract or contract-like instrument as described in section 5(a) of this order. These safeguards will decrease the spread of COVID-19, which will decrease worker absence, reduce labor costs, and improve the efficiency of contractors and subcontractors at sites where they are performing work for the Federal Government.... This clause shall specify that the contractor or subcontractor shall, for the duration of the contract, comply with all guidance for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance or Guidance), provided that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) approves the Task Force Guidance..."
So the language for contractor and sub-contractor requirements have not yet been drafted.
If you're a federal employee and you refuse the vaccination -- you may lose your job.
Historically, is it within the authority of the Federal government, State government, Government agencies, or private institutions -- to require vaccinations?
The majority cannot reason, they are herd animals who have been trained to defer to experts and ignore any input contrary to what the corporate press says is true. It is of no moral relevance to me whether being unvaccinated puts me in a 49% minority or a 2% minority.
I completely agree with the editorial that the fact that a sizeable percentage of Americans--especially in Republican states like Montana--are refusing to take a safe and effective vaccine that is readily available and will immunize them against a potentially deadly disease, and thus preventing the country from getting over this dreadful pandemic, are taking a position that is utterly indefensible. And I also think Governor Gianforte's responses to the pandemic are contradictory and hypocritical; on the one hand, he calls for all Montanans to get vaccinated and criticizes those who won't, but, on the other hand, he refuses to issue a mask mandate for the state, unlike his predecessor, Steve Bullock, and he is preventing Montana schools from instituting their own mask mandates to keep their students safe. He is also preventing private Montana businesses from requiring that their employees and customers provide proof of vaccination, which, like mask mandates, would surely lower virus rates in the state, And Gianforte bashes President Biden when he mandates vaccinations for all federal employees. Plus, the governor touts debunked, pseudo-scientific theories that masks don't work, nonsense that is refuted by the CDC and the entire scientific and medical establishments. Gianforte's mixed message guarantees that a lot of Montanans won't get vaccinated and oppose mask mandates, which ensures that many Montanans will needlessly die.
But I think it's important for those of us who support requiring vaccinations and mask mandates to understand the mentality of the anti-maskers and the anti-vaxxers, however insane their thinking may be. In the American West there has always been a deeply ingrained independent ethos and an equally powerful suspicion of government. This mentality wasn't all bad. The independent spirit allowed the pioneers in the West to settle the frontier in the face of extremely harsh conditions (though the Native Americans who were already living here and got pushed out may have seen things differently). And certainly government has been corrupt, in the past and today, so suspicion of government isn't always wrong. But when this kind of thinking leads people in the West to oppose prudent public health measures that are necessary to overcome a dreadful pandemic it becomes incredibly harmful. It seems the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers would literally rather die than let the government tell them what to do. Confronted by this dangerous irrationality, it's perfectly understandable that people like the author of this editorial and myself, who have sensibly gotten vaccinated and wear masks in public now that the virus is resurging in our communities, deeply resent our neighbors whose stubborn refusal to be reasonable is trapping all of us in this endless pandemic.
For all of you who think Dictator Biden's Edict is constitutional , here is a FACT to chew on:
1947 Nuremberg Code states clearly:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
In other words forced vaccination amounts a WAR Crime.
The constitution is about as effective at restraining the government as a gun free zone is at stop a mass shooting.
A gun free zone would certainly help considerably to prevent a mass shooting, Arthur.
Here we go again!! Henry, mass shooters LOVE gun free zones. They are cowards who know a gun free zone means nobody returns fire Churches, recruiting offices, etc.!!!
This is a response not to Arthur but to Fred below, who took me to task for supporting gun free zones. I think one key area in which we disagree, Fred, is that you, like most gun advocates, draw a sharp distinction between "bad guys" with guns, the mass shooters, and "good guys" with guns, the honest, decent armed citizens who fire back at the bad guys with guns and stop them from killing. But I think this distinction is actually much more blurry than you acknowledge. Take the issue of guns in the home. Study after study has shown that if there is a gun in the home it is much, much more likely to be used in a domestic dispute, a suicide, or an accident with a child, than it is to ward off an intruder. So are people really safer when they have guns in the home? Or are they actually more at risk? The way I see it, the more guns that are around, the more likely it is that people will shoot them, and thus the more likely it is that someone will be wounded or killed. And, inversely, if you reduce the number of these deadly weapons through sensible, moderate gun control, everyone is safer. But, honestly, I doubt either of us will convince the other on an issue on which we are so far apart. But perhaps there is still some value in simply sharing our views with one another.
Let me elaborate, Fred, on my comment below about gun control. I'm sure I won't convince you but, heck, I'm a sucker for lost causes.
Have you heard of the "instrumentality effect"? The instrumentality effect posits that if I feel murderous rage toward someone else, and I have a gun, or if I feel murderous rage toward someone else, and I have only a knife or a stick, I will do much more harm to the other person if I have a gun rather than a knife or a stick, even if I feel the same level of murderous rage in both cases. Do you see my point? I see guns as toxic products in the home, like bleach or cleaning fluid, which have the power to do terrible harm with incredible ease. But, of course, we need bleach and cleaning fluid in our houses. We don't need guns. That's why I don't own one.
If someone breaks into my house, then can take whatever they want and leave. I have homeowner's insurance, after all. If I don't fight back, I doubt the thief will kill me, since then he'd have committed murder along with robbery, and most thieves are immoral but sane. On the other hand, if I have a gun, and we get into a shooting match, there's a better chance that the robber, since he's probably the superior marksman, will kill me rather than that I'll kill him. I know this is a terribly unamerican attitude, especially in gun-crazy Montana, but I'm big on self-preservation.
Because of the the instrumentality effect, there is a direct correlation between the fact that Americans own more guns than any other Western industrialized nation, and the fact that America has by far the highest number of gun deaths of any of these countries. And now that Gianforte and his Republican cronies in Helena are legalizing guns in more or less all public places, even bars where patrons are drinking heavily, the number of gun deaths in Montana is sure to rise.
Trust me, Fred, I don't expect to persuade you. But you can't blame a guy for trying.
The Nuremberg Code was drafted to prohibit the dictatorial repression of the Nazis, Dave, not to stop democratic government from taking prudent health measures to protect the health of the populace during a pandemic.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
Letters to the editor on topics of general interest are welcomed and encouraged.
Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.