COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Biff_T]

22 hours ago, gearhog said:

The below letter was written by Commander Robert A. Green Jr., U.S. Navy, and signed by 231 current and former Service Members from all branches of the United States Armed Forces.

There was a time when I would have been put off by the tone and language here. Not anymore. I think it is entirely appropriate.

https://freedomfighter1776.com/dma-accountability

1 January 2024

An Open Letter to the American People from Signatories of this Declaration of Military Accountability

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams

     In the course of human events it sometimes becomes necessary to admonish the lawless, encourage the fainthearted, and strengthen the weak. We have reached just such a time in our history. The affairs of our nation are now steeped in avaricious corruption and our once stalwart institutions, including the Dept of Defense, are failing to fulfill the moral obligations upon which they were founded. Standing upon our natural and constitutional rights, we hereby apprise the American people that we have exhausted all internal efforts to rectify recent criminal activity within the Armed Forces.

     In the Declaration of Independence our founding fathers sought separation. We seek no separation, but through this letter and the efforts we pledge herein, we pursue restoration through accountability. We intend to rebuild trust and restore the rule of law, particularly within the Armed Forces. Ultimately, we strive to once again become a moral people, restoring our nation, and making it again worthy of the great gift of liberty won by the colonial-era American people.

     While implementing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, military leaders broke the law, trampled constitutional rights, denied informed consent, permitted unwilling medical experimentation, and suppressed the free exercise of religion. Service members and families were significantly harmed by these actions. Their suffering continues to be felt financially, emotionally, and physically. Some service members became part of our ever-growing veteran homeless population, some developed debilitating vaccine injuries, and some even lost their lives. In an apparent attempt to avoid accountability, military leaders are continuing to ignore our communications regarding these injuries and the laws that were broken.

     For GEN Milley, ADM Grady, GEN McConville, ADM Gilday, ADM Lescher, Gen Brown, Gen Berger, Gen Smith, VADM Kilby, VADM Nowell, VADM Fuller, LTG Martin, Lt Gen Davis, MG Edmonson, GEN Williams, ADM Fagan, VADM Buck, Lt Gen Clark, MG Francis, LTG Dingle, Lt Gen Miller, RADM Gillingham, and numerous others;

     These individuals enabled lawlessness and the unwilling experimentation on service members. The moral and physical injuries they helped inflict are significant. They betrayed the trust of service members and the American people. Their actions caused irreparable harm to the Armed Forces and the institutions for which we have fought and bled.

     These leaders refused to resign or take any other action to hold themselves accountable, nor have they attempted to repair the harm their policies and actions have caused. Since there has yet to be any accountability, the undersigned give our word to do everything morally permissible and legally possible to hold our own leadership accountable. We intend to rebuild trust by demonstrating that leaders cannot cast aside constitutional rights or the law for political expediency.

     The flag and general officers are far from the only ones complicit in recent illegal activities, as a significant number of SES leaders and political appointees contributed. Evidence indicates that other executive agencies are engaging in illegal activity. However, as service members and veterans, we feel particularly responsible for the DoD and, in accordance with our oaths, we will make every effort to demonstrate by example, how an institution can put its own house in order.

     We the undersigned, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of service members and the American people, while appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for guidance and purity of intention, mutually pledge to each other that we will do everything in our power, through lawful word and action, to hold accountable military leaders who failed to follow the law when their leadership and moral courage was most desperately needed.

     In the coming years, thousands within our network will run for Congress and seek appointments to executive branch offices, while those of us still serving on active duty will continue to put fulfilling our oaths ahead of striving for rank or position. For those who achieve the lawful authority to do so, we pledge to recall from retirement the military leaders who broke the law and will convene courts-martial for the crimes they committed. For those of us who attain legislative offices, we pledge to introduce legislation to remove all retirement income for the military leaders who were criminally complicit, and we will ensure none serve in or retire from the Senior Executive Service.

     This endeavor will be a continuous process with a long-term time horizon, but fulfilling our oaths to defend the Constitution requires just such persistent vigilance. Likewise, we are obligated, and so commit, to train those who come after us to fulfill their duty in achieving this accountability and safeguarding against such leadership failures hereafter.

     Our nation was once great because it was good. It was built on moral principles founded in natural law and yet, the recent acceleration of moral relativism has us headed towards a precipitous implosion. While all good things come to an end, we refuse to allow our nation to go quietly into the depths of decadence and decay. We promise to exhaust all moral, ethical, and legal means to restore the rule of law and will begin by attempting to hold senior military leaders accountable. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. We will fight to enforce that law and put an end to the two-tiered justice system. May future generations see our efforts and, God willing, may they also be recipients of the great gift of liberty that we have had the honor of safeguarding.

This

[tac airlifter]

Wow.  Fuck yea.

[Splash95]

What do we think will happen to the active service members who signed this?

[Biff_T]

4 hours ago, Splash95 said:

What do we think will happen to the active service members who signed this?

I think they will have a friend named Biff for life.. 

They are doing their job.  Sometimes that shit is hard.  I will back anyone who has the nuts to sign that. 

[O Face]

1 hour ago, Biff_T said:

I think they will have a friend named Biff for life.. 

They are doing their job.  Sometimes that shit is hard.  I will back anyone who has the nuts to sign that. 

Well said, Brother Biff!!

[gearhog]

16 hours ago, Splash95 said:

What do we think will happen to the active service members who signed this?

It's over 7000 signatures now. I signed it. I wonder how many are AD.

If they punish one AD member, they'd have to punish them all.

[SocialD]

Wow, 4 or 5 familiar names on the list of original signatories, most of which who are all still serving.  Strong message!  

[tac airlifter]

Fauci admits 6' social distancing rule was completely made up, no scientific basis.

 

[tac airlifter]

 

[Day Man]

i know you want to get spun up over this fake hysteria, but a 5 second google search will tell you this is nothing

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/dlp/coronavirus--covid-19--and-blood-donation.html

[brabus]

Another friendly reminder: Never trust anything you see on SM, MSM, blog site, etc. Go independently verify the claims or implications on at least a couple other sources before accepting and/or spreading said claims and implications. If more Americans did this, we’d be so much better off. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

i know you want to get spun up over this fake hysteria, but a 5 second google search will tell you this is nothing

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/dlp/coronavirus--covid-19--and-blood-donation.html

Thank you for your post & link.  I'm not spun up, but you're right that the commentary from the link I posted was needlessly dramatic; I should have just posted the Red Cross link.

A deferral for blood donation depending on vaccine manufacturer is yet another strange clue that vaccine mandates were premature and ill conceived.  My intent was adding to the growing collection of those clues listed here, not distract from how weird it is that C19 vaccines (from some manufacturers) now require deferral before blood donation.  
 

However, what you call hysteria I would phrase as righteous indignation at the crime of coercing the population to accept immature and dangerous vaccines which did more harm than good.  You may argue that characterization is untrue, but many clues are slowly piling up (including this post) providing data for my point.  The "hysteria" from this incident originated solely from the pro-vaccine crowd.  Although the commentary on my linked tweet might be provocative, it isn't incorrect.  

[Day Man]

33 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

A deferral for blood donation depending on vaccine manufacturer is yet another strange clue that vaccine mandates were premature and ill conceived.  My intent was adding to the growing collection of those clues listed here, not distract from how weird it is that C19 vaccines (from some manufacturers) now require deferral before blood donation.  

Your bias is clouding your reading comprehension...it's not based on manufacturer, it's based on a live attenuated vaccine vs an inactivated/mRNA vaccine.

And I'm not a doctor or biologist or other related big brain, but a 2 week deferral for a live attenuated vaccine vs an inactivated one hardly seems like a smoking gun WRT your vaccine conspiracy theory. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

Your bias is clouding your reading comprehension...it's not based on manufacturer, it's based on a live attenuated vaccine vs an inactivated/mRNA vaccine.

From the link:

“If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate….There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer”

Sounds like manufacturers are a variable based on the techniques of manufacture (some have live attenuated and some don’t), but you’re right perhaps my reading comprehension is poor.  However, I didn’t claim it was a smoking gun and since you need help understanding my point I’ll clarify for you:

 This is a new (ish) restriction from the Red Cross.  The fact they have new information resulting in new safety guidelines means new things are being understood about a vaccine we were forced to take and undermines the 100% certainty of “safe and effective” used to justify vaccine coercion.  Which leads smarter people to wonder “what else might we not know about these vaccines?  And what risks exactly were discovered resulting in new guidelines?  And if giving blood after certain types of vaccines is deemed unsafe, is breastfeeding safe?”  Etc.  Ergo I care less about the technical specifics and more about the indication that risks exist where no risks were claimed.

Pro-vaccine tyrants want downplay every new piece of information as insufficient to a mature case overturning their assertion that C19 vaccination was required.  But we’re learning, slowly, new risks ASW these vaccines and by compiling a list of those unspoken risks (of which this is an additional example) I’m making a case to the reader that more thorough study of these vaccines is warranted.  

Edited to add: I’d love to know what you think my “vaccine conspiracy theory” is.  I made it pretty clear what I think- these were forced on us without enough testing.  We should study this further, and learn from the emotional overreaction.  That’s it.  The fact you cannot have a rational conversation about the subject without claiming I’m a conspiracy theorist and insulting my intelligence doesn’t make you more convincing.

Edited February 20 by tac airlifter

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Another friendly reminder: Never trust anything you see on SM, MSM, blog site, etc. Go independently verify the claims or implications on at least a couple other sources before accepting and/or spreading said claims and implications. If more Americans did this, we’d be so much better off. 

Is something I posted incorrect?  

[Boomer6]

It'd be nice if they could simply say, "Hey if you received a live virus vaccine don't donate because you could give someone COVID." If that's not the reason then they should state what the reason is.

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, Day Man said:

 vaccine conspiracy theory. 

"safe and effective"

"you take it you will not get covid"

"winter of severe illness or death for the unvaccinated"

"100% protection against getting covid"

and you have the arrogance and hubris to accuse people of vaccine conspiracy theory? HAHA

people have the right to be skeptical.

[brabus]

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Is something I posted incorrect?  

You and I probably align almost 100% on the Covid debacle. But, the twitter post implies the Red Cross rule is another smoking gun regarding Covid info cover up. The reality is they just say you have to simply wait 2 weeks to donate blood if you got a live virus vaccine. This does not include the 3x companies that probably 99% of America got.

There are lots of smoking guns out there and tons of data that shows how fucked up/wrong/ineffective the vaccines and other COVID responses were/are, and demo the extreme amount of gaslighting conducted by the govt, the medical community, and big Pharm (and championed by the shithead progressive left). I have no trust in our govt, big Pharm, and medical community gets almost none - case by case basis I’ll trust any of them. But like it or not, this specific Red Cross thing is absolutely a nothing burger. Every time somebody goes after something like this, it provides a, “ha, gotcha!” moment for the left, and they use it to delegitimize the overarching message (which is a valid message). It’s not a good plan to fight mouth breathers with mouth breathing.

[tac airlifter]

6 minutes ago, brabus said:

You and I probably align almost 100% on the Covid debacle. But, the twitter post implies the Red Cross rule is another smoking gun regarding Covid info cover up. The reality is they just say you have to simply wait 2 weeks to donate blood if you got a live virus vaccine. This does not include the 3x companies that probably 99% of America got.

It's absolutely not a nothing burger, but neither is it some giant gotcha moment (which I didn't claim). In 2023 you could donate blood immediately after receiving a vaccine, now you can't. What changed? What other implications might that change have?  You talk about the manufacturers from 99% of Americans, but consider over 7 million illegal immigrants recently added to the country and many of them are donating blood to make money.  Have you donated blood recently? I was blown away how many non English speaking obvious new immigrants are using this as a cash source.

if you were expecting a smoking gun to collapse the liberal C19 scam, this isn't it nor did I say it was.  But think for a moment about the second and third order effects of the subtle policy shift, and the fact we are now acknowledging unknown risks were forced upon us; it should be clear this is not fake news to be ignored.

 

[brabus]

28 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

In 2023 you could donate blood immediately after receiving a vaccine, now you can't.

 Hate to say it man, but you are completely wrong - you absolutely can give blood immediately after getting a vaccine, including Covid vaccines and boosters from multiple companies. It’s very clearly stated on the website.  

And what was the point of your illegals comment? Seems like a red herring - I don’t see how that aspect is related at all to the specific discussion on giving blood IRT vaccine status.

Quote

This is a new (ish) restriction from the Red Cross.  The fact they have new information resulting in new safety guidelines means new things are being understood about a vaccine

These guidelines were published as early as Feb 21 (3 years ago). So no, they are not “new.”

 

Again, I’m with you on everything that’s fucked with COVID responses, but making arguments based on extreme grasping at straws is not helpful and only serves to reduce credibility of the overarching message.

Another example was the recent outcry by some conservatives about the CPS taking a kid from their home in MT. It initially blew up in conservative circles - and it was a 100% good and right thing for CPS to do in that specific circumstance. Those conservatives who bought and propagated that story in the early days only hurt the credibility of the valid argument against the govt strong arming parental control/rights over their children. The overarching message is valid and good, but the reaction to that MT case weakened the overall argument. The left is not the only group of people susceptible to falling for bullshit, half truths, and extreme exaggerations. 

Edited February 21 by brabus

[tac airlifter]

21 minutes ago, brabus said:

 Hate to say it man, but you are completely wrong - you absolutely can give blood immediately after getting a vaccine....

And what was the point of your illegals comment? 

1. Your first comment is wrong. You cannot give blood immediately after receiving a vaccine if it is in the category of manufacture requiring a two week wait.  That is new.  That's what this post is about.  This new policy applies to some manufacturers and not others, for brevity I left that out of my original statement.

2. The point of my post is given this new restriction, what information is that based on and what other implications might that information have? That is the whole point.  It's not a smoking gun, and was not meant to be.

3. you're confused why I brought up illegal immigrants, so let me spell it out for you: you said 99% of Americans received a vaccine not impacted by the new two week restriction.  But there is a new large group of people giving lots of blood coming from locations where this is relevant.  Is this why there's a new policy?  A speculative question on my part, but this is a discussion board, and the point is to discuss. Clearly I'm not as articulate as I thought I was if you don't understand the point under discussion.

4. And that is ultimately my response to you: you are looking at this as a completely irrelevant minor detail being blown into a large issue.  If it's so irrelevant, why did the Red Cross come out with a new policy?   Given how cagey information surrounding Covid has been, this was new and noteworthy and worth mentioning. I did not blow this into a major issue, other people did, by assuming more into the post than is actually there. Cheers.
 

Edited February 21 by tac airlifter

[brabus]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

if it is in the category of manufacture requiring a two week wait.  That is new.  That's what this post is about.

The point of my post is given this new restriction...

If it's so irrelevant, why did the Red Cross come out with a new policy?

Sigh...dude it's not new. That has been policy for over 3 years now. I'm not making a comment on said policy, just that it's not a new thing, and portraying it as new is invalid. So if this is what your posts are about as you just said, then this entire discussion is flawed because it's based on a false premise.

For the third time, we probably agree on just about everything COVID-related, but you're clearly seeing red and grasping for anything that supports your opinion, critical thought and individual research be damned. I likely agree with your overall opinion of all things COVID-related, but there's plenty of valid data to support said opinion; this straw man is not one of them.

[Day Man]

20 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

From the link:

“If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate….There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer”

Did you purposefully omit the preceding sentence? 

Quote

"The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives."

 

13 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"you take it you will not get covid"

"100% protection against getting covid"

and you have the arrogance and hubris to accuse people of vaccine conspiracy theory? HAHA

people have the right to be skeptical.

that's not how any vaccine works bro...and I can't remember any legitimate medical authority saying either of those things.

 

[tac airlifter]

27 minutes ago, brabus said:

Sigh...dude it's not new. That has been policy for over 3 years now. 

You are hard to talk to and full of assumptions, so I will end our dialogue by answering your above sentence, which seems to be the core disagreement.

False.  Maybe they went back-and-forth with policies I don't know, but just for fun I opened my old folder from group deputy and found the Red Cross authored policy for DOD as of Jan 23-- zero restrictions on blood donation of any type after Covid vaccination. In fact, it was encouraged for some reason.   I'm not going to scan the memo, but this popped up in a 1 second search essentially saying the same thing: https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2023/blood-community-reiterates-the-safety-of-america-s-blood-supply.html

I was unfortunately heavily involved in discipline issues during that time, meaning after graduating SQ/CC I was an admin bitch for WG & GP leadership picking through the complicated nuances of Covid discipline.  Guidance was changing constantly, faster than the organization could communicate. Frequently guidance would be in conflict with other guidance.  I don't know what the policy was in 2021 since I was busy killing enemies, but I know what it was in 2023, and I know that it has changed in 2024. Cheers.  
 

 

[brabus]

@tac airlifter

Directly from the Red Cross…