Senate Republicans Had A Chance To Force Dems Into Defunding Covid Jab Mandates, And They Blew It

https://thefederalist.com/2022...es-and-they-blew-it/

Senate Republicans declined to protect people’s right to decide what goes into their own kids’ bodies by caving to Democrats’ budget demands this week.

Despite efforts by some conservative legislators to defund Covid-19 jab mandates and shut down the radical, Democrat-controlled government, 19 Senate Republicans voted with leftists to pass a budget extension that was already approved by the House earlier this month.

Sen. Ted Cruz was one of the GOP members who tried to strategically cut off federal funding for schools and child care centers that are forcing the Covid shot on children through an amendment to the budget. Cruz said drastic action was necessary to combat an “absolute abuse of power.”

“Enough is enough. It’s time to stop the petty tyrants imposing Covid-19 vaccine mandates on families across the country,” Cruz said when he introduced the amendment. “No child should be denied an education because of his or her personal medical choice. Schools shouldn’t get federal taxpayer dollars to trample on our constitutional liberties. It’s time for all of us to take a stand. Are you with parents and kids, or power hungry politicians?”

The amendment garnered some support from his fellow GOP senators but not enough. Two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Roy Blunt of Missouri, voted against the amendment while another four Republicans — Sens. Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, Jim Inhofe, and Mitt Romney — did not vote on it at all, against Cruz’s urgings.

“The only way Dems win the vote is if Rs skip town,” Cruz tweeted on Thursday. “Don’t!”

Sen. Mike Lee also proposed an amendment to defund jab mandates for medical workers, military personnel, federal employees, and others whom President Joe Biden has tried to force into getting the jab with ultimatums.

Ultimately, Cruz’s amendment failed in a 44-49 vote. Lee’s also failed in a 46-47 vote.

Internal Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee polling suggests that at least 57 percent of voters in swing districts for the upcoming 2022 midterms think “Democrats in Congress have taken things too far in their pandemic response” but that didn’t stop some Senate Republicans from refusing to force Democrats’ hands into denouncing vaccine mandates. Instead, after Cruz and Lee’s amendments failed, 19 GOP members voted in favor of giving the leftist-controlled government more time to grab for funding.

Among them were Blunt, Collins, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Sen. John Kennedy of Lousiana, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Robert Portman of Ohio, Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Sen. Todd Young of Indiana.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, thanked Republicans, especially McConnell, “for helping us get this done.”

“We have kept the government open. It took some work, especially when the Senate rules lend themselves to delay and obstruction,” Schumer said.

quote:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, thanked Republicans, especially McConnell, “for helping us get this done.”

Who's the enemy again? Uh huh. Its time to sweep all the garbage out of the house and senate.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
ASG, I’ve been reading from some folks that seem to think it coincides with when Biden is supposed to announce he’s defeated COVID. I guess we’ll see. Probably be like last year, give people a taste of freedom and then take it away again two weeks later.

I dunno if that's gonna happen. A lot more people have woken up to the fact that this was a lot of hokum, not Covid itself, but the government's response. About the only people still on board are the True Believers, but they've lost the more moderate folks as promises of death and destruction and mountains of corpses failed to materialize. They've especially lost the support because so many people have gotten the Covid and it didn't really do anything to them.

My girlfriend got it, and the worst thing to happen was lettuce tasted like dirt, and that's the story for a lot of people, really mild symptoms, if any. If you're compromised in some way, by all means take precautions, but the vast majority of people were, and will be, fine. People are wise to that now.

What was the purpose of the brownshirt moving in to intimidate the parent who was speaking? i didn't realize you worked for the school board.

Real tough guy. Yeah.

Come on. The school board member summoned him. What was he supposed to do? Refuse to come forward? What did he do? Did he remove the parent? Use your head, please. He did nothing wrong.

And just stow that "brownshirt" shit.

Scotland to Stop Reporting COVID-19 Data Because of Concerns It’s ‘Being Misrepresented’

https://www.theepochtimes.com/..._campaign=2022-02-19

Health authorities in Scotland are halting the publication of COVID-19 data because of concerns the data is being used to promote inaccurate narratives.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) typically publishes a weekly report that includes COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Each metric is divided between people who are unvaccinated and people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Recent reports have shown more vaccinated people testing positive for COVID-19 and being hospitalized with the disease.

For instance, the report published Feb. 16 says 367 people who received one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were hospitalized, compared to just 64 unvaccinated persons. Deaths were also higher among the vaccinated.

The data has been noted by some experts and websites, including journalist Alex Berenson, who said in a blog post in January that it highlighted how vaccines have been failing to protect recipients.

The Feb. 16 report will be the last one published, a PHS spokeswoman confirmed to The Epoch Times.

“Due to the increasing risk of the data being misinterpreted, Public Health Scotland will no longer report a weekly summary of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status,” the spokeswoman said in an email.

“Public Health Scotland is reviewing the content and frequency of reporting this information. Public Health Scotland is committed to providing high quality public health science, communication and transparency, and will continue to publish up to date research on COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

The agency has also stressed in its reports that its officials believe the data “should not be used to measure vaccine effectiveness.”

Officials said the reasons include there being “systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are unaccounted for when comparing rates.” As one example, they pointed to a non-peer reviewed Australian study that found vaccinated people said they were more likely to get tested if experiencing a sore throat.

Vaccine effectiveness has been dropping with the emergence of new variants, according to a host of studies and real-world data. The COVID-19 vaccines have performed poorly against Omicron, with effectiveness dropping sharply against infection and protection dropping to a lesser extent against severe disease. That’s triggered recommendations for at least one booster dose, with some countries recommending two boosters for some populations.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

Dr. Paul Alexander, who studied evidence-based medicine and now works for a group called the Early COVID Care Experts, said that the move by Scotland authorities would make it more difficult to analyze vaccine effectiveness.

“The granular data out of Scotland has helped us understand the failure of the vaccines when our own nations of U.S. and Canada hide the data and misrepresent it. This is corruption by health authorities and now [we’re] being told that this may be the last such Scottish report. Why?” Alexander told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Their position now is laughable and horrible all at once. We are now called ‘anti-vaxxers’ by reporting the ACTUAL data. We call on Scotland and others to reverse this and continue to make the data available, especially as it relates to harm post vaccine as we need this for informed decision-making,” he added.

^^^^
The time has passed for a worldwide pushback against these liars and thieves. I’m not opposed to a French Revolution style action at this point. Crooked leaders the world over are clearly following an agenda that is leading us further and further down a path where poverty and compliance will be the eventual stopping point for those of us not in the tiny elite minority.

Striking Evidence of Covid Vaccines Failure

By Vasko Kohlmayer

A website called The Expose presents eye-opening evidence of vaccine failure in England. It does this by using the numbers reported by the British Government via its public health arm called the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

In case you do not know, the UKHSA “publishes a weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report, with each report containing four weeks’ worth of data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status.”

Using the data supplied by the UKHSA for week 5 of 2022, The Expose constructed the chart below. It depicts Covid case rates per 100K people for three groups: unvaccinated (green), double vaccinated (red), and triple vaccinated (maroon).

(see charts at link)

The chart shows that those who have been injected with the Covid vaccines are much more likely to contract Covid-19 than those who have not been injected. This may come as a shock to true believers, but it is a fact that a vaccinated person in England is more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than their unvaccinated counterparts.

This means that the Covid vaccines have negative efficacy vis-à-vis infection. The double vaccinated posted the highest rate of this disease followed by the triple vaccinated. The unvaccinated are by far the safest cohort as far as infection is concerned.

As we can see, receiving a Covid-19 vaccine makes people more prone to contracting Covid-19. Apparently, the vaccines weaken one’s immune system so that it is less able to ward off the disease. Thus, not only do the vaccines not protect against the illness – as all good vaccines should do – but they increase one’s vulnerability to it.

Before we move further, just a couple of quick observations:

Do you remember when they claimed that this was the pandemic of the unvaccinated? This was never true. If anything, it is now more a pandemic of the vaccinated. Their constant efforts to deceive the public shows that the vaccinators and their collaborators in the media, public health and politics are inveterate liars and gaslighters.

Secondly, the data makes it clear that vaccine passports make no sense. The justification for the vaccine passport rests on the assumption that its bearer is free of infection because the vaccine will protect him from contracting the virus. This has been mostly true for all the other vaccines in history, but it is most definitely not true for the experimental Covid vaccines, which actually make people more likely to become infected. When Boris Johnson cancelled the vaccines passports in England last month, he was the first world leader to act in accordance with reason and science.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...id-vaccines-failure/

^^^^
All the more reason to STOP CALLING THIS GARBAGE “VACCINES”.

How is this even a discussion anymore? What are these people that are pro forced injections and passports still hanging their hat on? The vast majority of everyone I know in the last six months who's had COVID was vaccinated. At work we had 1/3 of our campus out a few weeks ago, only one was not injected.

Note how the left has never gone after Trump for the "vaccines" he spearheaded the development of. The vaccine's marginal effectiveness vs. the verifiable value of therapeutics should be great weapons for Dim demagoguery. Instead, vilifying Trump is not a priority in this case, control of the people is what matters. It's all that matters, it's everything.

^^^ President Trump is an interesting aspect of this. As Dr. McCullach (sp?) once presumed, President Trump was taken advantage of. I suspect he thought the vaccine work had been in the works long before the President "spearheaded" anything. Maybe the leftists know this for sure.

Saw a report the other day that claimed tests now show immunity is passed from an expectant mother to their unborn child.

What pregnant mother with even a single brain cell would allow themselves to be vaccinated?

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

The irony that she's supposed to be keeping her child safe, not the other way around. Stupid shit for brains. Stupid is not cause to be denied at the pearly gates. But there should be some considerations / exceptions for cases like this.

It is not the child's duty to sacrifice him or herself for the older generation. It is and has always been the duty of the older generation to sacrifice for the future of the child and their generation. We are living in a disjointed reality, and the upside down nature of it all makes me sick.

That is the epitome of selfishness. It is literally child abuse. These leftists are pure scum. Her next post might very well be “she gave her life to keep us from getting sick”. Except it won’t do anything of the kind.

Makes me sick seeing that mother continue to inject her child for the “safety of others”. Then to use her sick child to virtue signal and farm for likes on social media. Psycho.

Religious Intolerance and COVID Vax Mandates
By Eileen F. Toplansky

In our current age of woke domination and historical ignorance, the words of Joseph Noyes speak to us through the centuries.

By the "middle of the 18th century, Yale College was beginning to show the effects of the religious toleration that was gaining ground everywhere in the colonies. When President Thomas Clap, in an effort to create a sectarian institution, tried to expel the Reverend Joseph Noyes from the Yale corporation, he was met by opposition both from Noyes himself and from another spokesman of an opposing Congregationalist faction. Noyes, whom Clap suspected of having fallen from the faith, was asked to submit to an examination by other members of the corporation." Noyes absolutely refused this request.[1]

On September 14, 1757, Noyes asserted that

[t]he law or resolve upon which my examination is founded is arbitrary; for a man to be subjected to an examination, on suspicion only, is contrary to all reason.

Said law or resolve is manifestly unjust, as it subjects a man, though innocent, to suffer in his character and influence, and leaves him without remedy.

Said law or resolve is singular and unprecedented, there having never been hereto any law or rule of the like nature in this Corporation, or any other Christian community, except the Courts of Inquisition and Star Chamber [emphasis mine].

Said law or resolve is inconsistent with the ecclesiastical constitution of this colony. I am accountable to the consociation to which I belong, touching my principles, and not to this board.

Noyes reminded his audience that "all legal processes, according to the common law, must be built upon some express accusation or charge, to be supported by proper and sufficient evidence; but suspicion and surmise are always discountenaced."

Yet, 265 years later, in the Age of COVID, we see students and faculty deprived of their jobs and/or education because institutions of higher learning have decided that they are now the modern day Star Chamber. It now appears that comparing COVID restrictions to Nazism is quite apropos.

At Penn State, employees who refuse vaccination face re-education and counseling. Consequently, "non-compliant faculty must meet with an executive ... to discuss their intent to be fully compliant. Further administrative actions will be discussed ... and will include expectations for progress toward compliance, potential for unpaid administrative leave, and other disciplinary steps up to, and potentially including, termination."

In Maryland, "Loyola Marymount University does offer the religious exemption option for students. That opportunity, like many universities, came with a deadline for enrollment for the fall semester, according to the university website."

Yet, law professor Jessica Levinson,[2] "when asked whether religious exemptions should inherently exist at religious institutions of higher education," maintained that "Covid vaccines should be treated like any other vaccine, and thus be mandatory in spite of religious liberties."

Thus, the law professor "argued that the larger issue is that people who are not religious will take advantage of the exemptions citing a faux devotion to a certain faith in order to avoid receiving the vaccine based on personal choice, and thus for personal reasons."

In other words, "to Levinson, the religious exemption law is merely a loophole: 'Certain members of our society are seeking to avoid [vaccine mandates] by seeking religious exemptions.' She emphasized that '[t]herefore, we should abolish religious exemptions for vaccine mandates. Religious objections to vaccines are not a license to kill.'"

Those who oppose the vaccine mandates explain their case. Peter Cordi[3] of Rutgers University, New Jersey wrote in August of 2021 that "never in [his] four years at Rutgers [had he] received such vicious, vulgar and venomous personal attacks ... since taking a stand against my school's vaccine mandate." He has been called "a monster, a fake Christian, a murderer, stupid, irresponsible, a liar, and better off dead."

I believe anyone who wants to be vaccinated should do so, but those who do not want to be vaccinated should be free to abstain without being denied their education and without being discriminated against and segregated based on their vaccination status.

As a healthy, 22-year-old male with no underlying health conditions, I have chosen not to be vaccinated, and believe the FDA warning of the myocarditis risk as well as potential long-term health risks associated with spike protein accumulation in the bone marrow outweighs the potential benefit of the shot in my case.

As a Christian, I believe my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and I should not ingest unnecessary and potentially hazardous pharmacopeia, especially those manufactured and tested using aborted fetal cell lines.

In addition, the lawsuit filed against Rutgers "argues the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional and discriminatory as it violates [people's] rights under the 14th Amendment, which defends against onerous dictates that violate Americans' right to liberty and personal freedom."

One point that especially unnerves Cordi about the mandate is "that the vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for any injuries or deaths caused by their drug."

So if Rutgers is mandating us to get the vaccine and something happens to one of the students as a result, who is responsible here? We already know from the VAERS data there has reportedly been some 600,000 adverse effects and 13,000 deaths, so it seems like a question that deserves an answer.

And then there are the so-called medical exemptions. Yet,"[t]he narrow scope of these medical exemptions is alarming: the exemptions are so medically unsound and unduly restrictive that they create a clear and present danger to the health, and potentially, the lives, of students subject to these mandates."

Respected medical authorities (Andrew Bostom, et al.) concur that "[n]one of the schools whose published criteria we have examined include the most elementary medical ground of all: natural immunity from a previous Covid infection."

In addition:

The CDC is not a medical institution; it is a public health and disease prevention body. According to the CDC's own mission statement, the agency focuses on 'disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities.' It is not qualified and usually does not purport to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients.

From time to time, the CDC offers findings and recommendations that competent medical practitioners often will consider in arriving at a professional medical judgment for a particular patient. In this respect, CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: they are guidelines, not prescriptions.

Furthermore, "none of the current vaccines have passed fertility, teratogenicity, or mutagenicity testing, thus may be contraindicated in women of childbearing potential or those about to become pregnant."

And, finally, "several published rubrics include a limitation that is eminently sound in itself, but which is, in an important way, quite dangerous. It is that exemptions are available where there is 'a documented anaphylactic allergic reaction or other severe adverse reaction to any Covid-19 vaccine — e.g., cardiovascular changes, respiratory distress, or history of treatment with epinephrine or emergency medical attention to control symptoms.'"

In other words, "put yourself in danger to find out if you're in danger."

Tell that to the mother whose three-year-old died of a heart attack after being required to receive the vaccine to enter kindergarten. Explain this to the families of two teenage boys where heart inflammation was the primary cause of death after being injected with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.

In reality, why are any exemptions necessary?

https://www.americanthinker.co...id_vax_mandates.html