Here’s the fruit of hours of research and colation — I hope that you find it informative, and possibly useful.
Here’s the version with normal line-spacing rather than the double line-spacing:
One thing that is disturbing about these mandates is the so-called “religious exemption” — for two reasons: (1) that the ‘exemption’ is impotent and ineffectual, and (2) that implicit in the system is the subordinating of religious rights to the adjudication of some administrator or bureaucrat — and everyone advising to take the ‘exemption’ seems unable to realize this.
The arrogation of this power to judge what is and is not acceptable religious thought is downright insane. On the one hand, you have people who likely wouldn’t have even the philosophical tools to understand the consequences of the stated beliefs, much less the theological grounding to understand anything but the most direct quotations and constructions from a belief-set — do you think, for example, they would consider what the implications of claiming the body as Temple of the Holy Spirit are? (1 Corinthians 6:19–20)
Moreover, the consequences of the ‘exemption’ have no effect. (At least insofar as NM’s EO is concerned.) …if you take the ‘exemption’ you are still subject to the periodic testing that was always the ‘alternative’, even though we know this ‘alternative’ is really a threat along the lines of the old mafia-threat: “Nice shop ya have ‘ere, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it…”
Thus it must be asked “then what is the real point of the ‘exemption’?”
The obvious answer lies in both the subordination of religious belief to bureaucracy and the useless impotence of the ‘exemption’ in policy, tying them both together: a sort of moral cowardice (giving ‘legal’ excuses, allowing for avoiding accountability) galvanized with an arrogant refusal to abide by (or even acknowledge) the limits of authority.
This refusal to acknowledge the limits of authority is the consequence of a sort of circular-reference logic termed as “appeal to self-authority” which is essentially: (1) Those in authority are good; (2) I am the authority; (3) If I was not good I would not be the authority; (4) Therefore, since I am the authority, I am good; (5) To oppose me is to oppose my authority; (6) To oppose my authority is to be evil, because I am good, as proved by my authority.
— Thus we see why, on the philosophical level, asserting that there is no such authority as they claim provokes such an emotional response: to even question the limits and boundaries is equivalent to denying their goodness and calling them evil… to their emotional-attachment this is the equivalent of declaring your intent to kill them.
And this brings us to “policy” — this is their great scapegoat: by simply saying “It’s policy!” they protect themselves from criticism (after all, they’re following The Rules!). While simultaneously divesting themselves of accountability (“We didn’t make The Rules!”) — again another circular-logic trap: (1) The rules are good; (2) I enforce the rules, so I am good; (3) any objection to the rules is proof of your evil. And just as above, any dissent or disagreement marks you as a horrible person who wants to destroy all goodness.
If this all seems familiar, that’s because the Courts have been using this for decades: they invented ‘Absolute Legal Immunity’ for themselves, then use that as a shield from any criticism of their judgements or overstepping their authority, especially any Constitutional limits despite the Constitution being the origin of their authority.
All this leads to a natural consequence: these ‘policies’ institute a system which is coercive and extortionate, with any dissent being summarily discarded — dissenters obviously being demonized as at least troublemakers, if not ‘lawbreakers’ — in other words: Welcome to Tyranny.
But, even worse, this is exactly what happens in Communism; consider the Soviet Union’s abuses of psychological incarceration: detractors were labeled as having mental illness, such as “sluggish schizophrenia”, removed from society via ‘institutionalization’, and God only knows how many were tortured. — All of this because such a system, established without real accountability, simply cannot exist in the presence of objections of conscience, or the opposition of good men, or true Justice and so must act against them all. In a sick way, the system acknowledges these and works to swiftly undermine, capture, isolate, and neutralize exactly such persons.
It is precisely this system which is being pushed on us, under the guise of ‘rules’ and ‘policies’, which bureaucrats and administrators can virtue-signal as being ‘good guys’ to the system by adhering thereunto rather than making the possibly-risky move of opposing these evil schemes which will be the normalization of coercion and extortion. Just look at the ‘mandates’ and how common it is to see or hear “I have to take the vaccine or lose my job.” — and the ‘alternative’ of “periodic testing”? It’s quite obvious that using a test with such high rates of false-positives, and which cannot distinguish between the various variants, is in-place only for the theater and inconvenience… and this says nothing at all about the invasiveness, discomfort, or possible malicious uses of these tests. (Imagine, if you will, infecting the tests so that the healthy would be contaminated in order to spread the narrative that simply testing does not work, and that the ‘unvaccinated’ are intrinsically a danger to themselves and others as a means to end the ‘alternative’ of testing.)
If these ‘policies’ and ‘rules’ and ‘mandates’ are allowed to stand, then we are as-a-people declaring that the normalization of coercion and extortion are acceptable in our society.
That our government, institutions, and corporations seem dead-set on implementing all of these — especially with the above sections in mind — there is a temptation towards demoralization: after all, who exactly are we?
That is what these people want you to perceive: they want you to think that you are alone, or part of a group too small to make a difference, and certainly not capable of simply saying ‘no’ or, even worse to their mindset, going on the offensive. — This is why they have been trying to control the narrative, via censorship and deplatforming and shadow-banning: they have very little real power, a lot of ‘influence’, and almost no real, actual authority. This is why they have to set up illusions, to make you ‘agree’ to their deceptions, and to keep you ‘controlled’.
So, instead of being demoralized, or angry, pray. Even if it’s only a few friends, family, or neighbors: pray — turn to Jesus — ask for wisdom, and then act.
I guarantee you that such is not the response that the evil powers want: they do not want you to have a community, they do not want you to have emotional or social support, they do not want you to appeal to the Judge about the injustices being pushed, they do not want your voice heard in Heaven (either now or in the hereafter) — I can’t promise you that God will miraculously act to remove these evils, I can’t promise you that you will be either comfortable or well-fed, but I can promise you that for the sake of Jesus, God will hear.
The Governor’s unlawful Executive Order is being implemented, the vaccine mandate is being pushed, with the aid of lies and false dealing and a cowardly refusal to stand against evil by the leaders in government. As we can plainly see, the “periodic testing” alternative is really just there to say “well, technically you aren’t required to get a vaccine”… just like technically you don’t have to pay your taxes.
The so-called “religious exemption” is false-dealing at its worst: by taking them at their word, allowing them to accept or reject your application, you are submitting to a religious test. You are literally agreeing to allow them to judge your beliefs as legitimate or illegitimate, and to allow or disallow [continued] employment based thereon. — What madness is this!? How can no-one see it?
My place of employment is NMSU, and the administration there has been particularly unresponsive to any concerns, as in literally no response:
I am quite disappointed and frustrated with the leadership, especially as there has been no real feedback, discussion, or debate on the issues I raised before. (See this post.) — As I said in the last e-mail, I refuse to comply with this lawlessness — so, now what?
I am not going to merely sit back and watch as these people destroy my State, my University, and my people. While I may no longer be enlisted, I still love New Mexico and the United States, and the oath of enlistment still rings true: I am going to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Mexico against these evil tyrants.
These administrators are either actively evil, or are so cowardly as to be functionally evil; they want us to simply roll over, to simply quit, to collapse in fawning obeisance over their every pronouncement. — It is quite obvious that they intend to push people who do not comply to either quitting or to committing an act of violence, so that they can run crying and screaming to mommy gov., but I have a better idea: as mentioned in my e-mail, the New Mexico Constitution allows for the collection of signatures of registered voters (per county) to compel the convening of a Grand Jury — if you’re in New Mexico, the required number of signatures are as follows:
The Constitution defines ‘Treason’ as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
LEV’Y, verb transitive [Latin levo; Eng. to lift.]
- To raise; to collect. To levy troops, is to enlist or to order men into public service. To levy an army, is to collect troops and form an army by enrollment, conscription or other means.
- To raise; to collect by assessment; as, to levy taxes, toll tribute, or contributions.
To levy war, is to raise or begin war; to take arms for attack; to attack.
First, note that ordering men into public service is a definition, and the President has announced he is doing just that; also note that the example of “levying war” is used as an example and includes raising/beginning war, and taking up arms for an attack.
Likewise, the definition for ‘war’ is similarly illuminating:
WAR, noun [G., to perplex, embroil, disturb. The primary sense of the root is to strive, struggle, urge, drive, or to turn, to twist.]
- A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, either for defense, or for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce or acquisition of territory, or for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other. These objects are accomplished by the slaughter or capture of troops, and the capture and destruction of ships, towns and property. Among rude nations, war is often waged and carried on for plunder. As war is the contest of nations or states, it always implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch or the sovereign power of the nation. When war is commenced by attacking a nation in peace, it si called an offensive war and such attack is aggressive. When war is undertaken to repel invasion or the attacks of an enemy, it is called defensive, and a defensive war is considered as justifiable. Very few of the wars that have desolated nations and deluged the earth with blood, have been justifiable. Happy would it be for mankind, if the prevalence of Christian principles might ultimately extinguish the spirit of war and if the ambition to be great, might yield to the ambition of being good.
WAR, verb intransitive
1. To make war; to invade or attack a nation or state with force of arms; to carry on hostilities; or to be in a state of contest by violence.
He teacheth my hands to war 2 Samuel 22:35.
Now consider that the threat to remove governors makes it plain and leaves no doubt that the motivation and object of such actions is “obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other” — that is, we have just heard a declaration that the federal government is utterly superior to the States and, implicitly, that the States are not [to be] sovereigns but rather subjects.
President Biden also threatened the People directly, and on multiple levels. From things like travel to education, from employment to even children… the pervasiveness of the treats uttered in this speech is astounding.
Those who are rejecting these unlawful and tyrannical policies were threatened quite bluntly — “we’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin” — which is interesting on several levels:
First, is it not the ever changing list of things that you have to do to show subservience (like masks, or lockdowns), and rights you have to surrender (like attending church, or social gatherings) that should make people hesitant? (In reality, though, ‘defiant’ and ‘rebellious’ are better stances against this lawlessness.)
Second, is it not true that multiple times the reason given for vaccination is to “protect the vaccinated”? (A hidden admission that these vaccines are NOT effective.)
Third, the implicit ‘or else’ — as if those refusing are children, incapable of making their own decisions and dangerously close to getting discipline.
Likewise, the declarations of the intent to use the Transport Safety Administration to molest the citizenry going about their business, to wit “the TSA will double the fines on travelers that refuse to mask” — a blatant declaration of the intent to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines… what’s more, the entirety of response to the pandemic by governments (federal and state, in tandem) is violative of the prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments: quarantining the healthy, shutting down people’s businesses, prohibiting the normal living of life, and the gathering together to worship.
It seems much of what government has done has increased the pain and suffering, and only just now are Sate governors saying “no more” — and good for them! — but what needs to happen is those enforcing these unlawful policies need to be punished, and more than the “slap on the wrist” punishments many egregious crimes are getting these days. (The truly vindictive sentences seem specially reserved for people like Kyle Rittenhouse who dare to defend themselves against the covertly-sanctioned and -supported ‘riots’.)
And let us not forget the threats to people who just want to do their job, being left alone. It’s too late though: you may not have an interest in politics, but those in politics have and interest in crushing you. — The declaration that all federal employees must get vaccinated (the ‘or tested’ is a lie: a fiction that operates like the mafia’s “or else”), as with everyone who does business with the federal government.
So, in the end, it looks like aside from the threats, and the declaration of war against the States, is a big game of chicken — who is going to stop him? You? Your company? Your State? — this is an interesting proposition, and it is obvious that it is not Biden but those controlling him making these dares.
I, for one, will not comply with illegal orders — and make no mistake, forcing people to undergo medical treatment against their will is criminal — remember RAMP:
Finally it should be noted that Texas prohibiting abortion is an interesting development — while I condone, in the strongest possible terms, the Texas lawmakers that enacted it there is cause for caution:
Here is the latest revision of amendments to the Constitution for the United States that I would recommend and the reasoning thereof.
Here’s a write-up detailing how the federal government is itself guilty of violating RICO laws:
RICO and the United States [PDF]