Mandatory vaccination policies

Clemenza

Sparrow
Correct. If the vaccine mandate can apply to a company of 100 there is no reason it shouldn't apply to a company of 1.

Same concept as income taxes. If the government has the right to 1/3 of your income they have the right to 9/10 of your income.
The 100 employee threshold is so arbritary, and I agree, they can easily lower this at any time. But for now, that's where it supposedly stands... I would think that moving to a company of < 100 employees should at least buy some additional time.

During any hiring negotiation phase with a company like this, where I am stuck is wondering whether or not to disclose to them that I will never comply with any future mandate, should the company decide to enact one, and whether to even to go as far as actually making it a condition of my employment. Or, to just take the silent approach and hope for the best.
 

nordle

Pigeon
For educational purposes could someone in a western first-world county explain the process they personally used to get a vax pass (without doxing yourself of course) without actually getting the vax?
I'm not going to explain, but if you are creative, you may be able to justify the dishonesty (against the tyrannical) for the greater good.
There are dozens of ways to do it in most countries.
 
Currently work for a fed contractor and had a religious exemption approved this week. Several hundred were approved from what I hear. Also, as a back up, I had talked to my old company about working remotely and that (private) company had a vaccine requirement for new hires--filed an exemption with them and they approved it also. So, so far two approvals. With the private company, it was for a remote position so they may not have cared that much.

Ones' mileage can vary, but as a Catholic I made the point of an adult conversion (not just born it it and never bothered to leave) and included some papers to show devotion (prior charitable giving, having taken Fr. Hardon's course a while back, etc.) Also included a paragraph on what constitutes Church Teaching, and that non-ex cathedra statements are not Church teachings (i.e., whatever the current Bishop of Rome says, or is claimed to have said, on the vaccine is non-binding). And did include a list of archbishops and bishops who supported resistance to vaccination. I did mention I was part of a Confraternity (the Confraternity of our Lady of Fatima) whose leader, Arch Bishop Athanasius Schneider, is opposed to vaccination. That organziation will issue a letter to members, and membership is for the asking, but membership does involve wearing the brown scapular and daily prayers, including 5 decades of the rosary--so would not suggest that route unless your are serious about it. It would, in my opinion, be pretty vile to falsely claim religous beliefs and devotions. The basis of the opposition is based all vaccines having been derived from products of abortion, and on vaccination of all type being voluntary. The point was, the belief is sincere, it matters not that some flaky bishop here or there likes vaccines, and there was solid theology against opposing this vaccine, and any and all forced vaccines.

Also mentioned that I had never taken a vaccine since the age of majority, and do not knowingly use anything having to do with abortion. And included a sentence that mortal sin involves knowledge, consent, and grave mater. This is because some denials at other companies had been based on "well, abortion products are used to test consumer products by some companies, and in other vaccines, so you've already crossed that line."

Anyway, this has been my experience. I know others try to keep it sort of vague on the "sincere" religious devotion thing, etc. This is what worked for me (twice), but maybe it was just lucky on my part.

Regarding the OSHA thing, I doubt it will survive the courts, and OSHA is not prepared to do any significant enforcement on it anyway. I used to work in industrial safety long ago. COVID is not an "occupational" exposure, at least not anywhere other than in hospitals, and I can not imagine the courts not striking it down. Even under the blood borne pathogens program, the hepatitis vaccine is voluntary and not required as per OSHA--it must be made available, but it is not mandatory. Even if it somehow passed the courts, I suspect that OSHA inspectors would resent it, and I don't care what any politician says, inspectors have a lot of leeway on reducing or even not assessing fines at all. They are geared up to inspecting industrial establishments that have more than a certain number of employees, usually due to employee complaints. This was a hare brained scheme by some too-clever-by-half politician. Again, I think the courts will strike it down and then a lot of angry voters will take it out on the Democrats next election. I live in Texas and at the barber shop today you should have heard a Hispanic working class guy railing against the Democrats on their chipping away at freedoms.

Now my problem is to I take the remote position and not have to drive to work every day, or stick with the current job. Current job will never go away while the remote job is with a company that was bought by venture capital.
 

Batman_

Kingfisher
Act in your best interest. Play the game back at them. Deflect questions. Quietly disregard ridiculous demands. Always be polite, but be wise as a serpent and play their game back. Don't outright lie. Don't outright deny taking the vaccine. Leave them in the grey zone.

The grey zone is their problem, not yours.

We may have to start thinking and operating like illegal immigrants do. They game the system and game it well. Seldom is anything "enforced." If they are caught, they are released shortly, then move back into the underground economy at another employer and/or town.

Firstly, be competent and diligent at your job. Be a happy worker. You want to be the guy who's shady boss fills out a document saying you got the shot - because he knows it is all bogus and he doesn't want to lose the strong horse in the stable. You may not even know he's done it.

I've heard stories of guys going to "get the shot." They filled out the paperwork, rolled up the sleeve, then when the attendant gave them the card they simply took it and walked out - no shot. Not that I am recommending this course of action, but: Game Recognized.
Interesting idea but I do wonder if they could report your action and somehow "flag" the paperwork. Then again, if it's just for an employer or something, I seriously doubt they'd call the clinic and confirm. Maybe you could make it easier on yourself and say you have a phobia of needles so they won't rush it.
 

canuckj

Sparrow
I'm not going to explain, but if you are creative, you may be able to justify the dishonesty (against the tyrannical) for the greater good.
There are dozens of ways to do it in most countries.
I think that is the problem. Without knowledge many will comply in the end. If we want people to stay strong we must arm them with knowledge on their options. I seriously doubt you will be able to get a real vax pass (QR code) in a first-world country without taking the jab. If it is possible I have no idea how and neither do many others. I really doubt a doctor or pharmacist is going to risk their lucrative careers on this for whatever we can offer them. Maybe if it is a close relative.
 
I just want to articulate this for those who may not quite get it, and as a reminder for those holding the line strong. Mind you, I speak only for the current state of affairs in the United States. For those in Austria, the Netherlands, and most of Europe I guess, it is unfortunate that you are likely on the very brink of war.

For those in the US, there is literally no way to lose by not getting their shot. You say, “I will lose my job.” Then you have to find a new job or source of income. You may lose worldly possessions.

You say, “MAYBE, I will die of Covid”, the propgandists themselves have said you are no longer protected from the so called virus.

For all those concerned, step back and realize that, you’ve got nothing to lose but maybe some material comforts. IF, somehow a natural or otherwise manufactured virus came out where a vaccine would help to keep you safe from ACTUAL death or disability, then we’d all probably have a different feeling about this. Time has proven this to not be the case.

Consider the QR code/passport idea, practically speaking, it will fail, there’s just no feasible way to operate a system like that except in intensely policed and administered cities. So they move to a microChip? Maybe the shot is or isn’t the Mark of the Beast, but a microchip?? There’s not even a debate anymore about it being the Mark.

Now suspend reality a moment and consider, “maybe we are all conspiracy theorists” and the mainstream is “telling the truth”, and they really believe they are helping their people, sooner or later they will move on and you can say “better safe than sorry” and get the stupid shot in 5-10 years the same as a flu shot. Big deal.

Worst case scenario, they come for you and kill and torture you, maybe they even forcibly inject you! Terrible stuff that I pray doesn’t happen, BUT if they go that far, the evil and further damnation that will fall upon those who not only commit but also condone such actions will be multiplied tenfold. They never got your consent and they violated your body. I believe the same can be said if they threaten to kill your family, I don’t think we could judge any man for that.

What I’m saying is, if you’ve held out this long, no matter how it plays out, you have already won.

The only option left on the table is all out war. It’s been that way for awhile, but they keep trying to put on a poker face and bluff their way to get the whole table to fold. You can’t stop a game of poker because you can’t stop time. Eventually you must fold or battle.
 

Padouk

Kingfisher
Das Vaterland ist verloren:


It was expected.

More or less they move in lockstep. It's good to remember that.

I'd say before xmas we'll have at least 2-3 other european countries locking up people who refuse the poison.

A piece of advice: move your money out of your bank accounts as the fines might be debited directly from there.
 

Grow Bag

Pelican
For those in the US, there is literally no way to lose by not getting their shot. You say, “I will lose my job.” Then you have to find a new job or source of income. You may lose worldly possessions.
It's kinda like a countries being sanctioned, they have to either get creative and start producing the goods or find alternatives to meet their needs. It's a call to make stronger ties with like minded souls and a stark reminder that being dependent on ZOG means you're subject to the whims of ZOG.
 

canuckj

Sparrow
I just want to articulate this for those who may not quite get it, and as a reminder for those holding the line strong. Mind you, I speak only for the current state of affairs in the United States. For those in Austria, the Netherlands, and most of Europe I guess, it is unfortunate that you are likely on the very brink of war.

For those in the US, there is literally no way to lose by not getting their shot. You say, “I will lose my job.” Then you have to find a new job or source of income. You may lose worldly possessions.

You say, “MAYBE, I will die of Covid”, the propgandists themselves have said you are no longer protected from the so called virus.

For all those concerned, step back and realize that, you’ve got nothing to lose but maybe some material comforts. IF, somehow a natural or otherwise manufactured virus came out where a vaccine would help to keep you safe from ACTUAL death or disability, then we’d all probably have a different feeling about this. Time has proven this to not be the case.

Consider the QR code/passport idea, practically speaking, it will fail, there’s just no feasible way to operate a system like that except in intensely policed and administered cities. So they move to a microChip? Maybe the shot is or isn’t the Mark of the Beast, but a microchip?? There’s not even a debate anymore about it being the Mark.

Now suspend reality a moment and consider, “maybe we are all conspiracy theorists” and the mainstream is “telling the truth”, and they really believe they are helping their people, sooner or later they will move on and you can say “better safe than sorry” and get the stupid shot in 5-10 years the same as a flu shot. Big deal.

Worst case scenario, they come for you and kill and torture you, maybe they even forcibly inject you! Terrible stuff that I pray doesn’t happen, BUT if they go that far, the evil and further damnation that will fall upon those who not only commit but also condone such actions will be multiplied tenfold. They never got your consent and they violated your body. I believe the same can be said if they threaten to kill your family, I don’t think we could judge any man for that.

What I’m saying is, if you’ve held out this long, no matter how it plays out, you have already won.

The only option left on the table is all out war. It’s been that way for awhile, but they keep trying to put on a poker face and bluff their way to get the whole table to fold. You can’t stop a game of poker because you can’t stop time. Eventually you must fold or battle.
I wish this was true in the case of my country. No one here will fight and that is what sucks the most. Unlike the Netherlands or Australia we still have the tools but not the will to get it done. I go to the rallies and it is the same people most times (almost like a social club for our minority). Out of a population of 1.5 million maybe 3,000 people come out.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Das Vaterland ist verloren:

The ship is sinking, but we can take the rescue boat and be saved, even though the rescue boat will be less comfortable than the ship we come from :).
 

Mikeyd03

Woodpecker
No one should take this vaccine.

My father's wife is a nurse.....and she said she's had 2 deaths in the past two months.......both healthy individuals with no prior health issues. Their only commonality being the jab.

Sure that's anecdotal.....but i'm sure there's many more just like that.

My cousin also took the jab and had to immediately go to the hospital the same day due to heart problems (She's in her 30s).

I'll never take it and will do whatever necessary to ensure that I don't have to take it while maintaining my freedom (i'm sure you guys can imply what that means, but not going to say it on here.)
 

Lankford Exposes HHS Leaked Memo Seeking to Strip Americans’ Religious, Conscience Protections​


WASHINGTON, DC- Senator James Lankford (R-OK) issued a statement after a leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services seeks to repeal certain protections for religious freedoms and directly calls out Members who have been outspoken of HHS’ mishandling of conscience and religious freedom protections.

The leaked memo from HHS states, “Groups who share the prior Administration’s broad view of the application of RFRA or who will interpret this action as an indication that the Department is abdicating its responsibility for compliance with RFRA will likely issue strong negative reactions. This includes members of Congress who have been outspoken about OCR’s conscience and religious freedom activities and who have repeatedly asked questions about changes to OCR’s organizational structure and legal authority.”

“The memo is correct, I am an outspoken advocate for religious liberty, and I have a very ‘negative reaction’ to this Administration ignoring the First Amendment and failing to protect Americans of conscience,” said Lankford. “Americans do not support President Biden and his team’s absolute lawlessness when it comes to upholding Americans’ Constitutional rights—including our right to freely live our faith. The HHS memo leaked today is the second leaked document out of this administration in a week, which contradicts public statements from now two Cabinet secretaries, and illustrates the absolute disregard this Administration has for the American people. We, as Americans, do not discriminate against people of faith. This move by Secretary Becerra shows he will not keep the commitment to protect religious freedom for every American that he made during his confirmation hearing.

“This action from HHS means that the Office for Civil Rights will no longer uphold the civil rights of religious Americans. HHS clearly intends to go back to the days of light to no enforcement of the law that protect the rights of people of any faith.”

The HHS memo continues, “OGC advises that the best interpretation of RFRA is that it provides third parties the ability to make a claim, or present a defense, in response to a Government action.” In contrast, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) specifically says that its purpose is “to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.”

Senator Lankford did not support the confirmation of HHS Secretary Becerra, citing concern with his hostility toward conscience protections and lack of experience to lead the agency.

Lankford questioned Becerra during a Committee on Finance hearing in February 2021. Lankford reintroduced the Conscience Protection Act earlier this year to protect healthcare providers, including health insurance plans from government discrimination if they decline to participate in abortions.

Most recently, Lankford called out Becerra for allowing California to violate federal law and the conscience rights of Californians, who do not want to pay for abortions. Additionally, Lankford led a bicameral group of Senators and Congressmen in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Becerra demanding answers on why the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC), which has received federal funds from HHS since 1998, for forcing a nurse to assist with an abortion procedure against the nurse’s registered conscience objections and in clear violation of long-standing federal law.

Excerpt from February 2021 hearing when Lankford question Becerra on enforcing existing law to protect Americans’ conscience rights in HHS

Lankford: As California Attorney General, you sued the federal government over 100 times, including multiple times dealing with issues about conscience protections that you would specifically have to now enforce on the other side of it, and so I’m trying to get some clarity on this. There’s a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division at HHS. They have compiled the 25 different conscience laws that already exist in statute, that are law, and to say that HHS in the past wasn’t always consistent in enforcing those laws, but they were going to actually be consistent because they were laws on the books. So my question is: will you continue to enforce existing federal law on conscience issues when you get to HHS? And what will you do with the conscience and religious freedom division?

Becerra: …I believe deeply in religious freedom, and I will make sure that as Secretary of HHS that you will know that I will not only respect the law when it comes to these issues of religious freedom, but I will enforce them as Secretary of HHS within my department.

Lankford: So the challenge that I have in just processing through this, just some of the history there, obviously when you were attorney general you had suits that went all the way to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court overturned. Some were decisions specifically on conscience issues, for instance the issue of the FACT Act that came out of California requiring pro-life facilities to have to post in their facility: here’s a way to get an abortion instead of having your child up for adoption, which feels very much like promoting abortion, not just providing abortions, a very different issue on that. You argued that case all the way to the Supreme Court, ultimately lost because the Supreme Court said what’s obvious to everyone: you can’t require someone to say something they disagree with. That’s a conscience issue. Another conscience issue was the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups like that that said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to participate in abortion-related health care, and about 28,000 Californians lost their health care that fit in with their conscience, based on how you were combatting with those folks. So, help me understand the disparity between those two.

yZVOb97x.jpeg
 

Padouk

Kingfisher
I've been thinking about the policies of the 100% mandatory vaccination and have the suspicion that it might indeed be just a bluff.

The agenda seems to be that they want as many people as possible to get the jab but if they get everyone vaccinated they can not blame aide effects and deaths on the unvaccinated and will also be unable to sell boosters because people hope that the jab will eradicate the virus. They need to keep the society divided in order to gradually implement the objectives of the WEF, because for such a fundamental change they need chaos. If there's 100% compliance, there is no chaos.

In conclusion they need us to keep the charade going. That's why a lot of reports from the alternative media are perhaps bogus and deliberate.
 
Top