On Thursday, the United States made a giant leap forward into a despotic and fascist future in which the government owns our bodies and can force us to do whatever they please. Thanks to the massive propaganda campaign waged by the mainstream media, half of Americans likely agree with it.
“We’ve been patient but our patience is wearing thin and your refusal has cost all of us,”
Mein Führer President Joe Biden said on Thursday as he bypassed Congress and unilaterally ordered 100 million Americans to undergo a medical procedure against their will — or become unemployable.
“My job as president is to protect all Americans,” Mr. Biden said Thursday. “So tonight, I’m announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together employ over 80 million workers to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”
“The bottom line — we’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers,” he said, completely disregarding the fact that natural immunity to the virus is exponentially more effective than the vaccine.
He also completely ignored the Constitution, the Congress, and essentially every single check and balance the government has ostensibly set up to prevent tyrants like him from making such broad and overreaching dictates.
It’s no wonder that #IwillNOTComply and #MassNonCompliance began trending immediately after the dictator on high delivered this chilling speech. In fact, they continued to trend into Friday morning highlighting the mass resistance to such tyrannical madness and the terrifying precedent that it sets.
Simply put, individuals own their bodies and have rights over them — including what they choose to eat, inject, or otherwise consume — that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Biden’s mandate violates this most sacred of rights and it must be resisted en masse.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public.”
If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of “vaccine mandates” and “vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that “some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute”) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:
[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .
[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .
While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.
The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”
What makes the ACLU’s position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.
The title of the ACLU report, resurfaced by David Shane, reveals its primary point: “Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach.” To read this report is to feel that one is reading the anti-ACLU — or at least the actual ACLU prior to its Trump-era transformation. From start to finish, it reads as a warning of the perils of precisely the mindset which today’s ACLU is now advocating for COVID.
The ACLU has published an article in the New York Times followed up by a tweet which asserts that the government forcing people to take vaccines is a victory for civil liberties.
“Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” the organization’s tweet ludicrously claimed. “They protect the most vulnerable, people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated, and communities of color hit hard by the disease.”
The tweet linked to a New York Times opinion piece written by ACLU staffers which further amplified claims that the government forcing people to take a vaccine under threat of them losing their jobs, social lives and potentially in the future the right to buy and sell was actually a boon for civil liberties.
What’s next? Maybe the ACLU will call for the government to forcibly incarcerate Americans for their controversial political opinions because it might ‘prevent harm’.
Respondents on Twitter were swift to ridicule the organization’s absurd hypocrisy.
“The government forcing a needle in your arm is actually them furthering your civil liberties” is quite the take even from Marxists like you. Thank you for dropping the mask to reveal yourselves though,” remarked Robby Starbuck.
Multiple states now have policies in action where drinking and driving can get your blood drawn by force — for a misdemeanor. While many states require a medically trained professional to conduct the blood draw, Georgia has upped the ante by training cops to draw your blood.
The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety received an impaired driving grant this month and is using it to train police officers to be vampires. While police won’t actually suck out your blood with their teeth, they will use a syringe to remove your blood from your body — even if you do not consent.
“A blood test is often the key piece of evidence needed to convict a DUI driver in court, but the barriers law enforcement officers are facing in getting blood drawn during a DUI investigation are resulting in too many of these cases going to trial without any toxicology evidence,” Allen Poole, director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, said.
The agency claims that not only will the blood evidence help prosecute cases, this could also be a deterrent if a driver knows a cop is also a phlebotomist.
“Knowing law enforcement will be able to gather forensic evidence and better prosecute the case, we’re hoping to get voluntary compliance with people not getting behind the wheel and driving,” said Roger Hayes, GOHS Law Enforcement Services Director.
But forced blood draws and increased DUI stops have done nothing to deter drunk drivers. In spite of their increased presence over the last decade, DUI checkpoints and Soviet-style roadblocks have not proven to significantly decrease DUIs.
The Australian government is going to seize 24,000 children from it’s citizens and place them in a stadium quarantine camp to be forcibly vaccinated. Parents will not be allowed to attend.
As was reported by the Daily Expose in the United Kingdom and Red State in the United States, Australia’s Brad Hazzard, the Minister for Health and Medical Research, has told parents in a press conference that 24,000 children will be sent to a stadium to get the experimental Covid-19 vaccine, and parents will not allowed to be present. Hazzard insisted to parents that their children would be “well looked after.”
Red State reported that “It should be noted that Australia has had strict vaccination laws since at least 2018. Parents can receive heavy fines and lose welfare benefits if they refuse to comply with the traditional vaccination schedule.”
Citizens will be charged with “on the spot” excessive fines up to $5,000 per infraction if they violate the tyrannical COVID-19 rules as their children get sent away to get forcibly vaccinated despite their protest as Australia conducts one of the most authoritarian military lockdowns to date.
Australian residents have received a letter from the Australian Government detailing how an “accommodation facility” will be used for mandatory quarantine “accommodation” called the Centre for National Resilience, Melbourne (the Centre) built at 135 Donnybrook Road. The first 500 beds will be completed by the end of 2021 and the facility will be equipped to increase to 3000.
Brandon Rutherford was recently presented with a dilemma in an Ohio courtroom: get vaccinated or face incarceration.
The 21-year-old was sentenced to two years probation for fentanyl possession by Judge Christopher Wagner of Hamilton County, Ohio on August 4, but his sentence came with a twist: he was ordered to get a COVID vaccine as a condition of his probation.
Should Rutherford fail to comply, he could be sent to jail for up to 18 months.
“I’m just a judge, not a doctor, but I think the vaccine’s a lot safer than fentanyl, which is what you had in your pocket,” Wagner told Rutherford.
Wagner gave Rutherford 60 days to get vaxxed and said, “You’re going to maintain employment. You’re not going to be around a firearm. I’m going to order you, within the next two months, to get a vaccine and show that to the probation office.”
The judge only knew Rutherford’s vaccination status in the first place because he questioned him when he arrived in court wearing a mask—a rule Wagner put in place for any unvaccinated people in his courtroom.
Rutherford was outraged by the mandate.
“Because I don’t take a shot they can send me to jail? I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I’m just trying to do what I can to get off this as quickly as possible, like finding a job and everything else. But that little thing (COVID vaccine) can set me back.”
The judge’s order created a stir, prompting Wagner to issue a response.
“Judges make decisions regularly regarding a defendant’s physical and mental health, such as ordering drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment,” he wrote in a statement. He also said it was his responsibility to “rehabilitate the defendant and protect the community.”
Wagner is not the only Ohio judge to take such actions. He joined judges in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties who made similar demands.
The formation of totalitarianism is often insidious in that it is almost always sold to the public as “humanitarian”; a solution for the greater good of the greater number. But beyond that, tyrants will also exploit the ideals of the target population and use these principles against them. Like weaknesses in the armor of a free society, our ideals of freedom are not necessarily universally applicable at all times and in all circumstances; we have to place some limits in order to prevent oligarchy from using liberalism as a tool to gain a foothold.
This battle for balance is the defining drama of all societies that endeavor to be free. It might sound hypocritical, and your typical anarchist and some libertarians will completely dismiss the notion that there should be any limits to what people (or companies) can do, especially when it comes to their private property. But at what point do private property rights encroach on the rights of others? Is it simply black and white? Does anything go? The bottom line is, in the wake of covid controls and mass online censorship, it is time for those of us in the liberty movement to have a frank discussion about where the line is for the rights of businesses.
The problem went mainstream initially a few years back when Big Tech companies that control the majority of social media sites decided that they were going to start actively targeting conservative users with shadow bans and outright censorship.
Here’s the thing: If we are talking about smaller websites run by private individuals, then yes, I would argue in defense of their right to remove anyone from their site for almost any reason. Their website is their property, and much like their home they can do whatever they want within it. Denial of access to an average website is not going to damage the ability of a person to live their normal lives, nor will it fundamentally restrict their ability to share information with others. There are always other websites.
But what if we are talking about massive international conglomerates? Should these corporations be given the same free rein to do as they wilt? Do private property rights and free markets extend to them as well, even if their goal is the destruction of the very principles of freedom we hold dear?
And, what if a host of small businesses in a given place decide they are going to implement freedom crushing mandates along with major corporations? What if they are all manipulated by government incentives or pressure?
What if governments do not need to implement totalitarianism directly at first because businesses are doing it for them? Do the dynamics of private property change in this case?