Quote of the day—Isabel van Brugen

Almost half of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.

Isabel van Brugen
January 19, 2022
Nearly Half of Democrats Would Back Temporary Detention for Unvaccinated: Poll
[It looks to me like nearly half of Democrats are at risk of prosecution for violation of Federal law.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Isabel van Brugen

  1. Kamala Harris stated publicly, in December 2020 I believe it was, that if Donald Trump was advocating a COVID vaccine, she wouldn’t take it.

    Quite apart from the idiocy of a Vice-President-Elect openly undermining the previous President (“undermine not, lest thee be undermined thine own self”)… this would put her first in line to fall afoul of this new rule, that any who criticize The Vaccines be fined or imprisoned.

    The Democrats would be in very serious trouble indeed, if they needed to obey their own rules.

  2. They don’t want them imprisoned, they want them executed. To them questioning the effectiveness of vaccines should be punished by immediate execution. Just like how they support the mandated extermination of the entire population of the United States if not the entire population of the world that is not vaccinated.

    And you know there are plenty of Democrats in power right now and would love nothing more than to deploy the United States military to kill every single unvaccinated person in the country. And then start killing dissidents that would oppose that. I am pretty sure there are several Democrats that support the literal nuclear carpet bombing of red states that are not imposing mandates. I mean our own *president supports using nukes to get rid of gun owners so why not?

  3. As Daniel said above. That Joe and Kamala were against the vaccine before they were for it.
    So it’s not the vaccine. It’s that portion of democrats that don’t like you going against their power to tell you what to do. No matter how hypocritical.
    Thus it is always with the communists.
    And as Shawn said. For that they would have you executed. No problem.
    Let’s hope it’s the same portion that showed up at Biden rallies? Their all big on someone else doing things for them.
    Thank God the America variant of communism is the weakest strain to ever exist.

  4. In regards to Joe’s comment about being in violation of Federal law; since when did the Democrats ever pay attention to any law? For them, it is all about what they feel about something right now. They just cannot be bothered to attempt to understand anything that intrudes on their fantasies. One of my favorite cartoonists was Bill Watterson and his Calvin and Hobbs cartoon. A specific cartoon comes to mind in regards to the way Liberals relate to law, starting with the Constitution. Calvin and Hobbs are playing a baseball game. Calvin is tagged out by Hobbs but then denies he is out because of a new rule he has just made for that instance. This is then followed by another and another to counter each objection that Hobbs has for the change. We used this cartoon quite effectively with our children when it was occasionally necessary to condemn their efforts to play “Calvin Ball”. Perhaps we need to resurrect this phrase for our current crop of politicians.

  5. “It looks to me like nearly half of Democrats are at risk of prosecution for violation of Federal law.”

    Are they though? Or do you mean, “…should be at risk…”? I submit that there is a rather enormous chasm of difference between the two. Have you painted a nice picture, and have I come along and messed it up and kicked over the easel?

    I mean, yes of course there are laws which ostensibly prohibit the deprivation of rights, but when the fed gov and all the states have been getting away with it for a century or two, at what point should we realize that such laws have been made effectively void? Looking at it from the practical sense, what would it actually take for such prosecutions to resume, and how likely is that scenario?

    I don’t see any sign, today, of a viable political movement that’s committed to any such, at all. Nor would a like movement be tolerated by the powers-that-should-not-be– They would use all the formidable power at their disposal to eradicate it. Thus I believe it will require divine intervention of the nature and kind as that at Jericho when Joshua and his people took possession of the city.

    But are there any such people today, as at Jericho, or during the Reformation, or of the Protestant settlements of the New World, who would scoff at death, seeing the futility and impotence of the greast worldly powers, not relying on their own cleverness or strength, but putting their trust entirely in God?

    Because that’s what it’s going to take, and it will NOT be for the sake of worldly salvation into a new worldly order.

    • Yes. I was sloppy with the phrase. It should have been qualified with “in a strictly legal sense” or some such weasel words.

Comments are closed.