Open Letter to the Vaccinated

Can they tell if you had Covid and all your shots & boosters? Can they tell the difference?

It’s cindosha. The first comment of page 4 has the quote. 

When I moved here, I had to show proof of all my childhood vaccinations. I couldn’t even though I’d had them, and the doctor said I may as well have them again because they were doing 10 year boosters a lot of them now.

Why?  If it decreases your risk of dying or your family/community, what is the harm?  You got the first two doses, what is one more? Viruses are smart, smarter than people that's why we are called a host.  It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers Movie or War of the Worlds....

your state does not require kids to get like 10 vaccines for things like measles, mumps, pertussis etc?

What a bunch of assholes.

"Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo on Aug. 24 directing the secretaries of the military departments to immediately begin full coronavirus vaccination of all members of the armed forces. The memorandum delegated them the duty to implement the policy for their respective branches of service. And the secretary of the Army subsequently issued a policy memorandum requiring Army National Guard units to be fully vaccinated by June 30, 2022.

Vaccination requirements, even unusual vaccination requirements, have a long history in the military. Less than a year into the American Revolution, George Washington ordered the inoculation of his forces against smallpox. At the outset of World War II, a massive federal push led to the development of novel vaccines for more than a third of vaccine-preventable diseases, including the first influenza vaccine, which was routinely administered throughout the war, along with inoculations for smallpox, yellow fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, plague and typhus. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration mandated vaccination against anthrax to ensure military readiness in case of what was presciently believed to be the most likely form of biological attack. And after the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush mandated vaccination against smallpox for similar reasons....

In two of its most controversial and hotly contested provisions at the time of ratification, the Constitution qualified the traditional breadth of this local control in what are collectively known as the Militia Clauses. The Militia Clauses give Congress both the power to “provide for the calling forth” of the militia (meaning ordering of the militia to serve under the command of the federal government) and to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” The only powers that states retain over the militia that are constitutionally protected from congressional interference are the powers to appoint militia officers and to conduct training in conformity with congressional regulations....

In other words, in the face of the continued refusal to abide by the coronavirus vaccine mandate, the Defense Department retains the power to expel holdouts not just from federal service but also from positions in the state’s National Guard. While the process for doing so is not free from administrative cost, it is far less cumbersome than what is required to court-martial active-duty personnel under the UCMJ.

For enlisted members of the Guard, the separation process would be carried out in accordance with Army regulation AR 135-175 as directed by NGR 600-200. The member would be entitled to pre-separation counseling, conducted by the member’s unit commander, to discover if rehabilitative efforts could solve the issue before separation is initiated. But if not, a member with less than six years in the service could be ordered separated under a General Discharge with little more than the signing of some forms.

For enlisted members with more than six years of service, the member would have the right to demand an administrative separation board. Such a board would also be required if the Defense Department sought to impose an Other Than Honorable Discharge, which could affect the member’s entitlement to veteran’s benefits. Such boards are commonly used for minor military infractions and generally entitle the member being involuntarily separated to a hearing in which they can argue for why they should be retained or at the very least, why their discharge should be under honorable conditions. When it comes to the conditions of an enlisted members’ separation for refusing the coronavirus vaccine, there would be little practical value in pursuing anything more punitive than a General Discharge (other than to perhaps make an example out of a particular individual), insofar as the department could simply mark the member’s discharge paperwork with a derogatory reenlistment code that would effectively bar any future military service.

For commissioned and warrant officers, the withdrawal of federal recognition is governed by NGR 635-101, which requires a board of officers to be convened (a so-called recognition board) in which the officer concerned is afforded the opportunity to appear in person to present a defense. The officer can also spare everyone the trouble by resigning in lieu of contesting the proceedings. As a practical matter, such recognition boards are procedurally similar to administrative separation boards. And in either case, the Guard members would quickly discover that—Brig. Gen. Mancino’s assurances notwithstanding—vaccine mandates are very much “lawful” and the “law.” And they would likely find themselves in the same position as the many service members who have previously tried, and uniformly failed, to challenge vaccine mandates in the past: swiftly and permanently returned to civilian life.

To be sure, the express terms of the relevant statutes notwithstanding, there is an outstanding legal question respecting whether the withdrawal of federal recognition can truly compel a state to expel a member of its National Guard. In litigation surrounding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, at least one California district court concluded that Title 32’s automatic separation provisions, despite their text, operate only as a condition of federal funding. In other words, because a state’s receipt of National Guard funding is made contingent on its compliance with Title 32, a state such as Oklahoma could very well continue to employ a service member in its National Guard despite the member’s loss of federal recognition. That state would simply hazard a potential loss of funding if it does so. And there is at least an argument that this tie to Congress’ spending power is constitutionally compelled insofar as the Militia Clauses’ reservation to states of the exclusive power to appoint the offices could be construed to entail the exclusive power to remove.

But that funding condition simply highlights the heaviest hammer that the Defense Department can swing if the leadership of the Oklahoma National Guard continues their campaign of civil disobedience against the coronavirus vaccine mandate. Under Title 32, if a state fails to comply with a lawful federal regulation, “the National Guard of that State is barred, in whole or in part, as the President may prescribe, from receiving money or any other aid, benefit, or privilege authorized by law.” In the case of Oklahoma, nearly 80 percent of its National Guard budget for fiscal year 2021 was covered by federal funding. Given that 90 percent of Oklahoma’s National Guard have either received or intend to receive the vaccine, it would be a remarkable act of political self-mutilation for the governor of a state whose death toll already ranks ninth in the nation (right behind Florida, Arkansas and New York) to hazard such a cost for what appear to be partisan reasons."

www.lawfareblog.com/federalism-and-coronavirus-vaccination-mandates-military-personnel

My state has exemptions for medical reasons, religious belief, and personal belief.

If you are seeking an exemption you simply turn in a signed form instead of a shot record. It’s a very easy process.


Additionally, private schools make their own rules and homeschoolers don’t have to follow any rules.

The state website indicates that you have to request an exemption form from the state to be mailed to your house (a process
the website says can take up to three weeks), sign it and have it notarized, and then turn it in. It’s designed to be a little onerous so parents don’t just print a form and turn it in because it’s easier than taking their kids to the doctor.

The private school I worked at followed state guidelines and more than once we had kids who weren’t allowed in school on the first day because they didn’t have their vaccine records complete or an exemption form. It’s not just a matter of a quick signature on a printed form. Private schools don’t want plague rat kids on campus, either.

As for having freedoms and choices, I wouldn’t hold up Texas as a great example of that on any count. Many of us would like the freedom to attend public schools free of preventable infectious diseases. Where is that choice in Texas?

Of course private schools can *choose* to follow public schools, the point is they don’t have to 🤷🏻‍♀️

Actually, yes. They do have to.

www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx

The adolescent petulancy of crying freedom (without any responsibility or consequences) and choices, while stomping all over the freedom and choices of others is beyond laughable. 🤷🏼‍♀️

If you like it in California, stay there. But don’t try to control other states.

What a stupid thing to say.  No one suggests CA or any state for that matter “controls” another state.  

Each state is responsible for the good and bad in that state.  No one else.

And from where I’m sitting on my lofty perch in Sonoma County the majority of the government of the State of Texas has no problem if it’s residents die needlessly if they feel they can make a political point.  And that says a lot about the residents of that state that don’t “get that” and it’s not good.  And apparently you are one of them.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so lackadaisical when it comes to other people needlessly dying if they think they are being inconvenienced in some way by doing something.