An Illegal Vaccine Mandate

Source: The Wall Street Journal (free link).

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry over this story. Laughter is appropriate because Stumble Joe’s administration so obviously and clownishly exceeded its authority. But tears are appropriate just because it tried; it is an awful thing to see an attempted murder of liberty.

30 thoughts on “An Illegal Vaccine Mandate

  1. “it is an awful thing to see an attempted murder of liberty.”

    1/6/2021 comes to mind.

    Am attempt to curb a pandemic via a public health mandate doesn’t even come close. If the court disagrees, then the rule of law is still good.

    Somebody tell that to the supporters of the Big Lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Attempted murder of liberty? Seriously? Jan 6th was an attack on our democratic norms, and these weasels keep saying it was just a rowdy group of trespassers and tourists.

      The pubic good apparently means nothing to those who live and breath in all of the big lies around Trump. More and more is coming out about his and his administrations attempts to downplay the pandemic.

      And there is precedent for vaccines. Funny how no one seems to remember that.


  2. Is Jan 6 now the universal excuse for every Democrat attack on the Rule of Law forever?

    This has nothing to do with Jan 6, or Trump.

    It is about blatant authoritarian abuse of the powers of the Executive Branch.

    Falling back on Trump as an excuse for Biden’s clear-cut violation of the Rule of Law shows how desperate the left has become and how intellectually weak their excuses are.


    1. It was a bit of sarcasm.

      Obviously it doesn’t fly on this forum.

      Yet, I don’t think the administration will cry the blues about bad or Hispanic or liberal or conservative judges. I don’t think they will call for threatening the judges by having a rally and ginning up the crowd.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The adminstration’s abuse of Constitutional authority is comparable to the Rittenhouse prosecution’s statement during closing arguments today: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”

      When you hear something like that, you just wonder whether you are living in the U.S. or in Kafka’s Russia.


        1. Police are authorized to use deadly force for self defense and fleeing suspects that elicit probable cause for harm to others.

          On a more realistic note, if Rittenhouse is found not guilty, then you can expect a lot more gun violence at demonstrations. Which is what a lot of people want anyway.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Rittenhouse must be found guilty or not based solely on the facts of the case, as seen from his point of view, at the time the events occurred.

            The possibility of violence resulting from the verdict cannot be a consideration.


          2. No kidding?

            I did not say it should determine Rittenhouse’s fate.

            I just made an observation that future demonstrations will probably have a lot more violence.

            And there are a sizable number of so called American “patriots” that will relish that. Organized militias, many anti-government, and even fringe unorganized groups like Antifa, love violence. They will get their licenses to kill after this trial. Nuance and law are not strong suits among the street fighters.

            Inside many conservatives is the idea that overthrowing the government is a good goal. If elections didn’t do it, there are other, increasingly acceptable methods in their quiver.

            We know this from history.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I didn’t say you advocated violence, I said you threatened it.

            You are constantly telling us that if legislation or court cases go the wrong way it will result in violence. As though policy should be determined by cowering to the thugs.


          4. Well, for a start, from this morning

            “On a more realistic note, if Rittenhouse is found not guilty, then you can expect a lot more gun violence at demonstrations. Which is what a lot of people want anyway.”


          5. Uh, that was in reference to PB and militias who not only threatened, advocated but acted.

            You have already excused 1/6 as no big deal and somehow justified. Don’t lecture me about violence please.

            Republicans already favor violence to get America back to what they want.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. My prediction:

            If Rittenhouse is convicted, the right will attack. He is their mascot.

            If he is found not guilty, the right will get a license to kill at the next demonstration.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Buring over a million dollars worth of new cars is not a demonstration.

            If police were doing their jobs there would be no need for citizens to step forward.


          8. Of course not.

            Victims are the target of aggression. A person committing aggression is by definition not a victim, even if his aggression proves ill advised.


          9. “… as seen from his point of view…”

            No one else viewpoint counts?

            You rob a bank because from your viewpoint it is a bastion of oppression.

            You shoot someone because they are trying to control you via satellite transmissions according to your understanding. (We just listened to top folks suggest that in a slightly different venue.)

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Not delusions, point of view.

            Self defense must always be seen from the point of view of the defendant.

            If someone approaches you with a realistic toy gun, or holding a gun which is out of ammo, the person holding it may know he is not a threat, but you don’t. If the threat reasonably appears real to you, then self-defense is warranted.

            Another foolish statement from the prosecutor yesterday. He claimed that Rittenhouse might have been justified in firing his first shot at Rosenblum but that shot disabled him and he should have stopped shooting instead of firing 3 more.

            As though Rittenhouse had time to wait evaluate the effect between shots with Rosenblum charging him from less than 10 feet away.

            The 4 shots were fired in just over 1 second.


          11. “Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me.”

            Mae West could have shot the man according to your litmus test.

            I think there is a problem when we introduce guns in volatile situations. I am not excusing looters and arsonists that show up at a few demonstrations. But motley, heavily armed civilians with no training in crowd control, policing or coordination create problems, not solve them.

            On the other hand, the drum beat of civil war is all coming from the right. Leadership on the right is pushing it hard. Mo Brooks, Gosar, Greene, Cawthorne, Trump (“stand by”…) and the list goes on, have been blunt about that. These are sitting Congressmen. Any Democratic leaders advocating violence?

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Why would you think Ms West would have met the standard simply because she suspected the presence of a firearm?

            Would a reasonable person in her situation fear harm?

            Would a reasonable woman fear rape simply because a man has a penis?

            Again your mind goes to violence where those who carry firearms does not.

            Do you have a cite for ANY of those elected officials calling for violence, as opposed to advising being prepared to resist violence?


  3. “If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, it’s gonna lead to one place, and it’s bloodshed,” said Cawthorn. “And I will tell you, as much as I’m willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there’s nothing that I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American.”

    Yeah, our elections are not rigged and without the hard right partisans, this statement would be patently ridiculous. Gee, to couch the bet, he says he would hate to kill me over the Big Lie.

    “”She’s a traitor to our country, she’s guilty of treason,” Greene says in the video, which she posted on Facebook at the time. “She took an oath to protect American citizens and uphold our laws. And she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who illegally invade our land. That’s what treason is. And by our law representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government. And it’s, uh, it’s a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.”

    I guess the hangman’s noose and scaffolding brought chills to her spine. I believe it was Greene who said that when the government vaccine thugs come to the door they will be answered with guns.

    “Video emerged at the weekend of Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) protesting about COVID-19-related mandates and those who advocate them:

    “Be prepared to defend your position. … We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees. … Some of us are prepared to carry that fight with every drop of our blood,” he said.

    Mo Brooks attending the rally with a flak jacket on kind of says it all. His own party, his own president and tons of Secret Service, etc. Mo knew what was planned, no doubt.

    Now, I assume, sadly, that you eat this stuff up. Having met you a few times, I think i can trust that your shooting will be at the farm. But there are many that are looking at this call for violence as permission. Just like the attackers who said “My president invited me here”.

    Unfortunately, this is the future of our country. But all the blood and glory talk is on the right.

    So you can pontificate all you want about Democrats and violence, but that is an illusion you believe in. The facts point in a different direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I realize that some of you don’t read either the Virginian Pilot or the NYTs, as they are just liberal rags full of lies. However, this article continues Len’s discussion.

    “At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats. “When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a “fair” question.”

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s