Advertisements



NorthShore workers sue hospital system, citing religious objections to COVID-19 vaccine mandate

The lawsuit seeks class-action status.The lawsuit seeks class-action status......»»

Category: topSource: chicagotribuneOct 25th, 2021

NorthShore may take action against workers with religious objections to COVID-19 vaccine mandate as case is underway, judge decides

Fourteen NorthShore employees are suing the hospital system alleging NorthShore won’t let them keep their jobs because of their religious objections to getting COVID-19 vaccines.Fourteen NorthShore employees are suing the hospital system alleging NorthShore won’t let them keep their jobs because of their religious objections to getting COVID-19 vaccines......»»

Category: topSource: chicagotribuneNov 30th, 2021

Federal Judge Blocks Hospital From Putting Unvaccinated Workers On Unpaid Leave

Federal Judge Blocks Hospital From Putting Unvaccinated Workers On Unpaid Leave Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, A federal judge temporarily blocked an Illinois hospital system from allegedly putting workers with religious exemptions on unpaid leave. In late October, several employees at the Chicago-area NorthShore filed a legal complaint against the company, arguing that the firm’s vaccine mandate discriminated against them by forcing them to decide between a vaccine and their jobs. Liberty Counsel, which is representing the 14 health care workers, said in an emailed statement last week that the “plaintiffs have shared these religious beliefs, and others, with NorthShore, and have asked NorthShore for exemption and reasonable accommodation for these beliefs, but NorthShore has unlawfully and callously refused.” U.S. District Judge John Kness on Friday issued a temporary restraining order against the hospital system. “They can’t be fired and they can’t be placed on what is effectively, in my mind, unpaid leave,” Kness said during a hearing on the lawsuit, reported the Chicago Tribune. NorthShore is “going to have to keep paying them. If you wish to require them to show up to work and use [personal protective equipment] and go through testing because you need the help and you don’t want to pay them to be off site, that’s up to the hospital,” he added. Liberty Counsel said that more than a week ago, “NorthShore had already started purging those employees with sincere religious objections to its ‘Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy'” and removed many employees with religious exemptions from its November work schedule. That included staff members with appeals that were pending, Liberty Counsel said. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines say that employees may ask to be exempted from vaccine requirements due to religious or medical reasons. However, workplaces do not necessarily have to grant the exemptions under certain circumstances, the agency’s guidance adds. Horatio Mihet, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the Chicago Tribune that unvaccinated workers can still work there while wearing personal protective equipment and getting weekly testing. NorthShore previously told The Epoch Times that it understands “that getting vaccinated may be a difficult decision for some of our team members” and values “their committed service and respect their beliefs.” On Monday, NorthShore didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. “We must prioritize the safety of our patients and team members in support of our broader mission,” the hospital system said. NorthShore, in a statement to local media last week, disputed several claims in the lawsuit and had “considered each request based on multiple criteria” on exemptions. Tyler Durden Tue, 11/02/2021 - 12:27.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 2nd, 2021

Black Lives Matter NYC Leader Promises "Uprising" Against City"s "Racist" Vaccine Passports

Black Lives Matter NYC Leader Promises "Uprising" Against City's "Racist" Vaccine Passports Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, One of the leaders of a Black Lives Matter group in New York City promised an “uprising” against the city’s COVID-19 vaccine passports, decrying the system as racist. According to data provided by New York state, about 85 percent of black residents have not received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Data provided by New York City shows that 64 percent of black people between the ages of 18 and 44 are not fully vaccinated while 56 percent have received one shot. Hawk Newsome, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, told the Washington Examiner that “I think, in a perfect world, [vaccine requirements] should be business by business. But it could be a slippery slope, so the mandate should be removed completely.” He added: “It’s not gonna be white men in suits on Wall Street who are gonna get stopped. There’s such hypocrisy in this thing.” Newsome said he believes that black Americans “have a natural distrust of the vaccine,” citing the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in the 20th century for a reason why. “How dare they remove religious exemptions? It’s the most disrespectful thing I’ve ever seen,” Newsome said, adding that he believes that most vaccine mandates don’t allow religious exemption. “Now the government has decided your God doesn’t matter? I love God.” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, argued in a court filing this week that the state has no constitutional obligation to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines for healthcare workers. Religious exemptions to the vaccines most commonly center on objections on how aborted fetal cells were used in the manufacturing and testing process. Medical exemptions usually include a doctor’s recommendation that a person not get the vaccine due to an underlying medical condition. The Epoch Times has contacted Black Lives Matter of Greater New York for additional comment. Another member of the group promised an “uprising” in New York City over the vaccine mandate. “We’re putting this city on notice that your mandate will not be another racist social distance practice,” Chivona Newsome, a leader of the group, told fellow protesters during a demonstration in Manhattan in front of Carmine’s restaurant on Monday. “Black people are not going to stand by, or you will see another uprising. And that is not a threat. That is a promise.” “The vaccination passport is not a free passport to racism,” she added. Black Lives Matter activists had accused Carmine’s of racially profiling three black women from Texas, who were arrested last week after a hostess allegedly demanded vaccination proof. A lawyer for Carmine’s denied their allegations. “Any claim that they were racially profiled is a complete fabrication, disingenuous, and outright irresponsible,” Carolyn Richmond, the attorney for the restaurant, told the New York Daily News. Tyler Durden Fri, 09/24/2021 - 22:00.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeSep 24th, 2021

Bureaucrat"s False Promise: Take Two COVID Shots And We Will Reopen

Bureaucrat's False Promise: Take Two COVID Shots And We Will Reopen Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com, More lockdowns are underway in Europe. What happened to reopen promises? Fury Over Lockdowns  Global markets are reeling in the wake of more lockdowns and threats of them. The Economist (paywall) notes surge of deadly covid cases in Europe is met by popular fury over lockdowns. The sight of 40,000 unvaccinated Austrians marching through their capital, Vienna, in recent days was troubling twice over. The tightly packed opponents of lockdown measures were at risk of spreading the coronavirus. They also threatened to stir up an already tense political situation. Karl Nehammer, Austria’s interior minister, warned that anti-vaxxers in the Alpine republic are growing more radicalised. He called the demonstration’s mood “incensed” and “aggressive”. Some protesters were extremely provocative, carrying placards likening Alexander Schallenberg, Austria’s new chancellor, to Josef Mengele, the sadistic physician at the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz. The protesters were marching against Austria’s increasingly tough measures against anti-vaxxers. On November 22nd the government imposed a full lockdown once again, to last for at least ten days. That compels Austria’s 9m people to hunker down at home, leaving only for work, essential shopping and exercise. Austria is also the first Western democracy to make covid-19 vaccinations mandatory for all, starting on February 1st 2022. “For a long time—maybe too long—I and others assumed that it must be possible to convince people in Austria to get vaccinated voluntarily,” said Mr Schallenberg when he announced his “very difficult” decision. Let Our Guard Down The Washington Post (paywalled) reports ‘We let our guard down’: Frustrated Europe heads into second pandemic winter Life was finally starting to feel normal. An online flier for an October party in this Belgian beach town cursed the coronavirus and invited people to dance and drink again, to “get your clacker back from the attic” and kick off Carnival season. Hundreds attended that event and another Carnival party the next night. Most of the town is vaccinated, and people were required to show proof, or a recent negative test, to enter. But it wasn’t enough. Coronavirus cases spiked the week after. Officials worried about pressure on the local hospital. And soon the town found itself under semi-lockdown once more. As Americans catch up with family and friends this holiday week, with some trepidation about enduring risk, Europe is facing another wave of the virus — and a gloomy and frustrating second pandemic winter. New Heavily Mutated Covid Variant CNBC reports Belgium Confirms Case of New, Heavily Mutated Covid Variant. The emerging variant arrives in Europe amid an already devastating Covid surge linked to the delta strain. Europe saw more than 2.4 million new Covid cases over the week ended Nov. 21, an increase of 11% from the previous seven days, according to the WHO’s most recent epidemiological update. Europe represented 67% of all Covid cases reported globally during that span, the WHO measured. Belgium tightened restrictions this week to stop the spread of the virus, requiring people to work from home four days a week through the middle of December. Austria started its fourth lockdown of the pandemic on Monday, with a nationwide vaccine mandate scheduled to take effect on Feb. 1. Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg has said that the lockdown will last for at most 20 days. New Lockdowns and Restrictions Slovakia declared a two-week lockdown on Wednesday. People can leave home for a limited number of reasons, including buying groceries, going to work and to school, and getting vaccinated. And starting next week, all workers will have to show they’ve been vaccinated, recovered from the coronavirus or had a recent negative test. Austria, imposed a lockdown that will last at least 10 days and up to 20.  The Netherlands ordered bars and restaurants to close at 8 p.m. Belgium has mandated that all but essential employees work from home four days a week. Belgium also reinstituted an indoor mask mandate this month. Merkel pushed for a German lockdown as its death toll passed 100,000. The U.K.  halted flights from six countries in the region, and European Union member states have collectively agree to pause travel to and from southern Africa. Singapore banned flights from southern Africa Japan is increasing border controls for travelers from the region. Italy requires proof of vaccination or recovery for access to many parts of public life. Vaccination restrictions fcome into effect on December 6 and last until January 15. Mess in Germany  Eurointelligence comments on Germany's Federal Virus. The massive outbreak in Covid-19 hospitalizations and fatalities in Germany raises disturbing questions about who is in charge. Having failed to achieve the right levels of vaccine procurement early on during the pandemic, the German authorities have repeated the same mistake. They did not procure the booster shots they needed. They have not set up a network of vaccination centres to deliver them rapidly. As of this weekend, only 11.4% of the population has received booster shots. It is very difficult to get an appointment. Only doctor's surgeries are allowed to deliver them. The network has not been expanded to pharmacies.  So why is this happening again? The answer is that the German healthcare system, well-funded as it is, is not set up for a pandemic, or indeed for public health emergencies in general. This is a publicly-funded, but privately run, healthcare system. The states are in charge of the local healthcare administrations and hospitals. Health insurance is a matter for the federal government, but states supervise the health insurance companies. What can possibly go wrong? Message From German Stats In Germany, over 45% of people hospitalized for Covid-19 are fully vaccinated. That last stat sounds more shocking than it really is. Germany is 68% fully vaccinated. Thus 55% of the hospitalizations cases come from 32% of the population. Only 11% of Germany received a booster. Given vaccinations wear off, the proper take away is get a booster, not flout the stats.  Vaccine Mandate US In the US, the Biden administration imposed a vaccine mandate vis OSHA on companies with more than 100 employees. On November 15, I noted Appeals Court Blocks Biden's Vaccine Mandate in a Blistering Rebuke The rebuke was a huge attack on the competence of Biden's mandate. My position, upfront was the mandate was unconstitutional.  Given multiple attacks on the mandate, jurisdiction, the case moved from the 5th Circuit to the 6th Circuit, where Biden doubled down.  On November 23, I commented Biden Doubles Down on Vaccine Mandate With Another Circuit Court The justice department files an emergency motion with the 6th circuit court arguing the 5th circuit's postponement of the OSHA vaccine mandate was unjustified I strongly suspect the 6th Circuit will reaffirm the previous ruling. Meanwhile, protests or not, mutations go on and on.  What Covid Lockdowns and Disruptions in Europe Signal to the U.S. False Promise "Take two shots and we will reopen society. That turned out to be a false promise." It's been one false promise after another, by Dr. Fauci, by Trump, by Biden, by Merkel, globally everywhere. Trust is essentially gone and rising protests are proof. *  *  * Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/27/2021 - 13:45.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 27th, 2021

NYC Firetruck Availability Down To 55%, Manpower Shortages Due To Vaccine Mandate: NY Firefighters

NYC Firetruck Availability Down To 55%, Manpower Shortages Due To Vaccine Mandate: NY Firefighters Authored by Enrico Trigoso via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Two NYC firefighters gave The Epoch Times an update on the present situation of the FDNY under the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Most alarming was an internal document indicating that on Nov. 3, there were only 55 percent of firetrucks available. The normal number, according to him, should be about 90 percent. A picture of an internal document showing the availability of fire trucks in New York City. (Provided to The Epoch Times) “ENG,” short for engine, represents the firetrucks that have a water hose. “LAD,” short for ladder, represents the trucks that have a ladder. “My engine has about 25 guys, and of that, half of the guys went home,” said the firefighter, who now has less than 30 days before termination. A screenshot of the NYC Fire Wire App showing the fires that took place in New York City on Nov. 2. (NYC Fire Wire App) On Wednesday, there were four fires that went above 3rd alarm in the city, according to the two firemen that the Epoch Times interviewed and the NYC Fire Wire app that gives alerts and updates on the fires in the city. Every subsequent alarm means that a fire is getting bigger or it’s persisting to the point that members on the scene need replacement. Two of the fires went up to 4th alarm and one of them went to 5th alarm. “It’s very unusual. It doesn’t happen often,” the firefighter said, showing the Fire Wire app. Most of the firemen want to keep working for the FDNY, but are not allowed. “A lot of guys are looking for a side job, some guys are looking to retire, not by will, but because they feel like they’ve been forced. “They want to work. My company is out of service today as we speak,” he continued. “A lot of guys have to show up every tour and say ‘we’re here ready to go and you guys sent us home.’ They’re not allowed inside the firehouse building,” the firefighter said. He noted that he did a lot of research on his own about COVID-19 vaccines and feels that they haven’t been thoroughly tested. “I listen to doctors. I personally don’t want to take an experimental vaccine. I already had COVID and I have the natural immunity. I also was tested for the antibodies as well. So my natural immunity is working. I got sick at least twice from last year till now and I have recovered 100 percent every time by myself without any vaccines,” he said. Another fireman told The Epoch Times on Wednesday afternoon that “there were three multiple alarms today in the city.” “That doesn’t normally happen. That’s a direct result of manpower shortages. So a third alarm, fourth alarm, a fifth alarm, all in 12 hours. That’s a direct result of manpower shortages. And the manpower shortages are a direct result of de Blasio’s mandate, there’s no going around it. Those fires don’t go more than a room or a mattress or anything other [than] a small fire, but now they’re [going through] entire floors of buildings.” Some of the comments in the app blamed de Blasio’s mandates for the fire, while others asked for civility. Last Friday, Uniformed Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro predicted that dozens of Firehouses could close due to the mandates. “According to the city, there are no firehouses closed, but they’ll leave one member in the firehouse answering the phones, answering the door if someone knocks, and that counts as a firehouse being open. The companies are closed massively throughout the city. Thirty to 50 companies every tour, which is a huge number. Around the fourth alarm in Brooklyn today there were two engines closed in the first response ticket, there was one truck closed and there were multiple engines understaffed,” the fireman said. Mayor Bill de Blasio wrote on Twitter on Monday that no firehouses have been closed and that response times were normal. He recently imposed a vaccine mandate on all city workers, with no testing opt-out. The firemen were given until Monday to get the vaccine or be sent home on unpaid leave. The FDNY had already been short of staff since the pandemic began. About a week ago, according to the Fire Department Union leaders, about 30 to 35 percent hadn’t taken the vaccine, mostly citing natural immunity and religious objections. In a press conference on Thursday, they updated the number: 20 percent still haven’t taken it. But about 100 firefighters per day are now taking the vaccine, a daily 1 percent increase. Another update from the conference was that the city finally answered the Union’s demands at 7 p.m. on Thursday, giving them one day—which the leaders said is an unreasonable amount of time—to file their religious exemption and medical exemption applications, otherwise they will be sent home unpaid. The Union representation said that they thought that the unusually high, multiple alarms were a result of the cold season, and not related to de Blasio’s mandates. They also said that for a firehouse to be counted as open, at least four or five firemen need to be present. Tyler Durden Fri, 11/05/2021 - 16:20.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytNov 5th, 2021

Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett side with liberal justices, decline to block Maine"s vaccine mandate for health workers with religious objections

Barrett wrote such cases should not be decided on the shadow docket, "on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument." The Supreme Court is seen on the first day of the new term, Monday, Oct. 4, 2021. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite The Supreme Court denied a request brought by healthcare workers seeking to skirt a vaccine mandate. The court declined to stop Maine from requiring those with religious exemptions to get vaccinated. Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices. In a ruling Friday, the Supreme Court declined to block Maine from requiring vaccine mandates for healthcare workers who object on religious grounds.Maine requires all healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and does not grant religious exemptions.A group of healthcare workers sought an emergency order from the Supreme Court that would block the requirement for those with religious objections.The court voted 6-3, with conservative Justices John Roberts and Trump-appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices.The majority did not give a reason for the decision, but conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, issued a long dissent."Unlike comparable rules in most other States, Maine's rule contains no exemption for those whose sincerely held religious beliefs preclude them from accepting the vaccination," Gorsuch wrote, adding that the healthcare workers who sought relief from the rule have served on the frontlines throughout the pandemic."Yet, with Maine's new rule coming into effect, one of the applicants has already lost her job for refusing to betray her faith; another risks the imminent loss of his medical practice," he continued.Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion, briefly remarked on their decision to block the request, citing the fact that the case was brought on the shadow docket, or as an emergency appeal. Shadow docket cases do not involve oral arguments or full rulings that are part of normal cases.Barrett said the shadow docket should not be used for such a case, and that the court should not make this decision "on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument," implying she and Kavanaugh could vote differently if the case came before the court in a different way.Maine has required healthcare workers to receive certain vaccinations for decades. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, a state law removed religious and philosophical exemptions. The law, which took effect in September of this year, was adopted after 73% of Maine voters supported it in a referendum, according to The New York Times.In August, Barrett also rejected a request to block Indiana University's vaccine requirement for students, though she did not provide a reason. However, she made the decision without consulting other justices, as justices are allowed to do on emergency appeals, suggesting she did not think there was much legal justification for the request.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytOct 30th, 2021

Biden"s "Come On, Man" Defense Will Not Fly On Religious Freedom

Biden's "Come On, Man" Defense Will Not Fly On Religious Freedom Authored by Jonathan Turley, Below is my column on the President’s dismissal of any objections to the Covid vaccine and his call for mass firings of first responders who remain defiant. The comments reflect a growing call for states and the federal government to reject any religious exemptions for vaccination. Here is the column: “Come on, man,” seems to be President Biden’s signature response to any uncomfortable question. The phrase is meant to be both dismissive and conclusive in ending inquiries, frequently used to counter reporters before often walking away. Indeed, it is so often repeated that it appears on T-Shirts or coffee mugs and in remixes. This week, however, it was not the pesky press but freedom itself that got hit with a version of the comeback. When asked during a CNN town hall program about those still objecting to taking COVID vaccines, Biden mocked them and their claimed rights with “Come on, ‘freedom.’ ” He then called for any police officers, firefighters, medical personnel or other first responders to be fired en masse if they refuse to be vaccinated. Biden’s response to the question was applauded by the CNN audience, as if to say “Freedomm Ptff, that is so last century.” And he reduced any vaccine refusals to claiming “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID.” He is not alone in such rhetoric. Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot declared that police officers refusing to take vaccines are insurrectionists. The problem is that the courts already recognize some religious exemption arguments. Those arguments are based on both the constitutional protection of religious values but also laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), which declares unlawful any “employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s … religion.” The federal government also is subject to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government and other covered entities like the District of Columbia from “substantially burden[ing]” a person’s exercise of religion. Under RFRA, there is no “Come on, man,” defense. Instead, the federal government must show that the burden imposed furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. There is a move in many states to refuse to allow such exemptions, but courts have pushed back. In New York, the state is appealing a preliminary injunction against its refusal to allow religious exemptions to its vaccine mandate. A lower court found the governor’s mandate “has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.” Likewise, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this month affirmed such a preliminary injunction against Western Michigan University. The university allowed students to ask for individual exemptions but failed to grant religious exemptions under its discretionary policy. The issue reached the Supreme Court this week when health workers challenged a similar law in Maine allowing for medical but not religious exemptions. Justice Stephen Breyer rejected an emergency motion but too much has been made over that order, which was not based on the merits of the claim. The appellate court was already expediting review of the case, and the dismissal was “without prejudice.” The health care workers can refile if circumstances change or if the appellate court rules against them.  They also can refile if the lower court has not reached a decision by Oct. 29, when the vaccine requirement is scheduled to go into effect. Previously in the term, Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly declined to grant a request for emergency relief on behalf of eight students at Indiana University against a vaccine mandate. That mandate previously was upheld by conservative judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote for an unanimous Seventh Circuit panel that “each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting.” He cited the Supreme Court’s 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding a state small pox vaccine mandate. However, there was one major difference in Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University: Indiana University allows for medical or religious exemptions. Various commentators and activists are pushing states to follow the lead of New York and refuse to recognize any religious objections to vaccines. This week, Jessica Levinson, a clinical professor of law at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles, wrote a column for MSNBC entitled “Covid Vaccine Religious Exemptions Should Not Exist.” Professor Levinson, however, refutes an argument not made in these cases. Courts have long rejected the notion that “each person would be in charge of which laws she wanted to comply with and when.” In 1990, it was Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, who wrote the opinion rejecting the use of peyote under religious claims. Levinson quotes the Supreme Court from an 1879 case, asking: “Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?” It was a curious choice of support. The question was asked in Reynolds vs. United States, one of the most religiously intolerant opinions in Supreme Court history. Most people would recoil from the prejudice that comes out of the case, which denounces the Mormon church for adopting a practice “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Ironically, Reynolds defended Western and Christian morality against non-Christian values. Professor Levinson is correct, of course, that religious claims are balanced against the interests of the state in public health cases. That, however, is precisely what these litigants are seeking to raise. Most states allow for such exemptions while many private employers impose alternative measures, like daily testing or remote-working conditions. States like Maine and New York offer no recognition, let alone accommodation, for religious objections to the Covid vaccine. Again, religious objections can be recognized as valid but still fail to overcome countervailing arguments or simple accommodations. In Boston, for example, a Muslim objected to the flu vaccine in 2011 due to the use of pork ingredients; the hospital prevailed because it offered a vaccine free of such ingredients. Moreover, even if there are exemptions to vaccines, it does not mean people cannot face other limitations, like remote learning or workplace conditions. The point is simple: Just as religious individuals do not have the absolute right to refuse any obligation as citizens, governments do not have an absolute right to impose any obligations on citizens. Vaccines seem to have become the latest battleground for our age of rage; there is little willingness to recognize countervailing arguments or values. People who object to vaccines are deemed “insurrectionists,” while raising religious freedoms is now likened to claiming “the freedom to kill you with my COVID.” It is the same dismissive response that is often given to objections under other rights like free speech: Those are just abstractions. As Biden said in an earlier call for greater censorship, free speech is “killing people,” so come on, man. The categorical rejection of any religious-exemption case runs against the grain of the Constitution as well as federal statutes. If the Justice Department goes into court with the president’s dismissive position, it could find itself on the wrong side of the next “Come on, man,” moment. Tyler Durden Tue, 10/26/2021 - 18:10.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytOct 26th, 2021

Florida Governor Calls for Special Session to Counter Vaccine and Mask Mandates

Florida Governor Calls for Special Session to Counter Vaccine and Mask Mandates By Jannis Falkenstern of The Epoch Times, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Oct. 21 called for a special legislative session to consider bills countering vaccine and mask mandates. The move follows a series of covid vaccine mandates imposed by the administration of President Joe Biden. This does not sit well with the Florida Governor, and he has “had enough” of federal interference into state business, Christina Punshaw, Press Secretary told the Epoch Times. The legislative proposals include the provision of reemployment assistance to people who are fired due to failure to comply with an employer’s vaccine mandate. Under another proposal, Floridians who have an adverse reaction to a vaccine would be eligible for workers’ compensation. Employers who fire workers solely based on the vaccine mandate would be prohibited from enforcing non-compete agreements against the employees, according to another proposal. Another provision would require employers to provide and religious and health exemptions to vaccine mandates. Meanwhile, companies that fail to notify employees about the exemptions would be liable to lawsuits by fired employees. President Joe Biden last month ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to create a rule to require all private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate vaccines or require them to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing. The rule could affect nearly 80 million workers according to administration officials. Businesses could face fines up to $14,000 per violation. Although the rule is not yet in effect, a large number of private companies have mandated vaccines for their employees in anticipation of the rule. According to Charlotte County attorney Charles Heekin, the Florida legislature could tackle the vaccine mandate issue by building on the right-to-work protection in Florida’s Constitution. Florida is an at-will employment state. Employers can fire, demote, hire, promote and discipline employees for almost any reason, or no reason at all. As a result, the strongest recourse for private company vaccine mandates is through legislative action. In April, DeSantis signed an executive order banning vaccine passports in the Sunshine State. In May, he signed a bill into law codifying the ban. The law (pdf) prohibits businesses from requiring customers to prove their vaccination status. It also prohibits government entities in Florida from issuing such documents. “In Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision,” DeSantis said in May before he signed the bill into law. Republicans in Texas, Wyoming, and Nebraska are considering statewide laws against vaccine mandates. A special session in Texas wrapped up without a vote on a bill countering the vaccine mandate backed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Lawmakers in Wyoming will hold a special session next week to consider bills to counter vaccine mandates. In Nebraska, Republicans need more votes to trigger a special session to consider similar bills. In a news release, the senators say there is a “growing concern that employers will require their employees to choose between their jobs or being vaccinated without regard to their good faith personal objections.” Tyler Durden Thu, 10/21/2021 - 15:02.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeOct 21st, 2021

Why Big Businesses in Texas Are Ignoring Gov. Abbott’s Vaccine Mandate Ban

Mandates have proven to be an effective but controversial method for compelling vaccine-shy Americans to receive their shots. But as the Biden Administration has doubled down on requiring COVID-19 vaccination—including proposing a rule that businesses with more than 100 employees mandate vaccination—for some Republicans, opposition to mandates is proving to be an essential credential for… Mandates have proven to be an effective but controversial method for compelling vaccine-shy Americans to receive their shots. But as the Biden Administration has doubled down on requiring COVID-19 vaccination—including proposing a rule that businesses with more than 100 employees mandate vaccination—for some Republicans, opposition to mandates is proving to be an essential credential for showcasing leaders’ conservative bonafides. On Oct. 11, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott—who has opposed masking but came under fire from a Republican political rival recently for allegedly failing to push back hard enough on federal vaccine mandates—took a strong stand against vaccine mandates, issuing an executive order banning any “entity” in Texas from mandating vaccination for people who object to the vaccine for any reason, including “personal conscience.” [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] Stuck between following federal guidance and the state executive order, representatives for high-profile businesses based in Texas told TIME that they feel that federal law as well as employees and customers’ safety supersedes Abbott’s rule. And those that already required employees to be vaccinated have no intention of changing course. Dell, which is based in Round Rock, Tex., and boasted revenue of $92.2 billion last year, is requiring employees to be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing to work in the office. “Any employee or contractor who experiences challenges with the policy will have the option, by role, to work remotely,” the company told TIME in a statement on Oct. 12. “We believe this policy provides multiple options for anyone who works for or with Dell, and allows us to maintain safe working environments around the world.” IBM, which has large offices in Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio and reported revenue of $73.6 billion last year, said all direct employees of federal contractors must be vaccinated by Dec. 8, or get a medical or religious exemption. “We will continue to protect the health and safety of IBM employees and clients, and we will continue to follow federal requirements,” the company told TIME in a statement. The air travel industry, which has come out strongly in favor of vaccine mandates, has also declined to change course. American Airlines, the largest airline in the U.S. which has its headquarters in Fort Worth, told Bloomberg that it feels the pending federal rule “supersedes any conflicting state laws.” The company is requiring all employees be fully vaccinated by Nov. 24. A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines, which is headquartered in Dallas, echoed American Airlines in a statement to TIME, writing, “federal action supersedes any state mandate or law, and we would be expected to comply with the President’s Order to remain compliant as a federal contractor.” Southwest employees must be vaccinated by Dec. 8. Other organizations responded to Abbott’s rule with greater caution. Chevron, which has facilities in Texas and is one of the largest oil companies in the world, told TIME that its employees who travel internationally, work offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, or work aboard tankers must be vaccinated. However, a statement from the company noted that the federal rule has not been formally issued yet, “so it is premature to say what its impact will have on our operations.” “To the extent federal, state and local laws are not in conflict, we endeavor to remain in compliance with all of them,” the statement read. “​​When a new law is put into effect, we review our practices and adjust them as may be necessary.” Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, which currently requires its employees to be vaccinated, told TIME that it is reviewing Abbott’s order, but reaffirmed its commitment to vaccination, noting that many of the women and children it serves are immunocompromised. “We support the ability of private employers to determine the best vaccine policy for their operations and employee safety,” a representative told TIME in a statement. Houston Methodist announced an employee vaccine mandate in March, and later fended off a lawsuit from employees who opposed the mandate; more than 153 employees in a workforce of 26,000 ultimately resigned or were fired in June after they failed to to be vaccinated by a final deadline. Dr. Marc Boom, president and CEO of Houston Methodist, told TIME that because the hospital implemented the mandate early, it won’t be immediately affected by the order, as most employees are already vaccinated. But he added that the hospital system is taking a closer look at the executive order to determine its implications. “We are concerned for other Texas hospitals that may not be able to continue their mandates now with this executive order,” Boom said. “Health care workers all have an obligation to safely care for their patients and this order makes that promise harder.”  .....»»

Category: topSource: timeOct 12th, 2021

Louisiana"s largest health system is making employees pay $200 a month if they want their unvaccinated spouses to remain insured

Ochsner Health, which is based in the Southeast, said it's introducing an insurance surcharge for the unvaccinated spouses of staff in 2022. Ochsner Health is already mandating the vaccine for its 33,000 staff. Stephen Zenner/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images A key Louisiana health system is adding an insurance surcharge for staff with unvaccinated spouses. Ochsner employees will have to pay an extra $200 a month if they want their spouses to stay covered. Its CEO said 82% of the system's staff are fully vaccinated. See more stories on Insider's business page. Employees at Louisiana's largest health system will have to pay $200 a month to keep their unvaccinated spouses insured under the company's benefits system.Ochsner Health said in a letter to staff that the "spousal COVID vaccine fee" would begin in 2022, per New Orleans publication NOLA and photos shared on social media. It said that it wouldn't apply to other unvaccinated dependents.CEO Warner Thomas told the publication that Ochsner had decided to introduce the surcharge after analyzing its benefits plan."The reality is the cost of treating COVID-19, particularly for patients requiring intensive inpatient care, is expensive, and we spent more than $9 million on COVID care for those who are covered on our health plans over the last year," Thomas said.He told NOLA that this wasn't a vaccine mandate for spouses and partners, and that they could choose to get health insurance from another provider. Unvaccinated spouses and partners could be exempted from the surcharges if they have medical or religious exemptions, he said.Delta Airlines has also introduced a $200 monthly insurance surcharge for unvaccinated staff. A fifth of its unvaccinated workforce got the shot within two weeks of the company announcing the policy.Ochsner announced in August that all of its 33,000 employees would have to be vaccinated by October 29. At the time, 69% of Ochsner staff were vaccinated. It didn't say whether this statistic was based on employees who were fully vaccinated or who had had at least one dose of a vaccine.Thomas told NOLA that as of late September, 82% of staff were fully vaccinated, rising to 98% among physicians and hospital leaders.Around 300 members of staff have applied for medical or religious exemptions, Warner added.Houston Methodist Hospital, which mandated the shot for its staff, said in June that 153 workers quit or were fired over the policy. Some state and healthcare officials say that vaccine mandates are exacerbating staffing shortages in hospitals and other healthcare facilities.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytOct 3rd, 2021

A President Betrayed by Bureaucrats: Scott Atlas Exposes The Real COVID Disaster

A President Betrayed by Bureaucrats: Scott Atlas Exposes The Real COVID Disaster Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute, I’m a voracious reader of Covid books but nothing could have prepared me for Scott Atlas’s A Plague Upon Our House, a full and mind-blowing account of the famed scientist’s personal experience with the Covid era and a luridly detailed account of his time at the White House. The book is hot fire, from page one to the last, and will permanently affect your view of not only this pandemic and the policy response but also the workings of public health in general.  Atlas’s book has exposed a scandal for the ages. It is enormously valuable because it fully blows up what seems to be an emerging fake story involving a supposedly Covid-denying president who did nothing vs. heroic scientists in the White House who urged compulsory mitigating measures consistent with prevailing scientific opinion. Not one word of that is true. Atlas’s book, I hope, makes it impossible to tell such tall tales without embarrassment.  Anyone who tells you this fictional story (including Deborah Birx) deserves to have this highly credible treatise tossed in his direction. The book is about the war between real science (and genuine public health), with Atlas as the voice for reason both before and during his time in the White House, vs. the enactment of brutal policies that never stood any chance of controlling the virus while causing tremendous damage to the people, to human liberty, to children in particular, but also to billions of people around the world.  For the reader, the author is our proxy, a reasonable and blunt man trapped in a world of lies, duplicity, backstabbing, opportunism, and fake science. He did his best but could not prevail against a powerful machine that cares nothing for facts, much less outcomes.  If you have heretofore believed that science drives pandemic public policy, this book will shock you. Atlas’s recounting of the unbearably poor thinking on the part of government-based “infectious disease experts” will make your jaw drop (thinking, for example, of Birx’s off-the-cuff theorizing about the relationship between masking and controlling case spreads).  Throughout the book, Atlas points to the enormous cost of the machinery of lockdowns, the preferred method of Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx: missed cancer screenings, missed surgeries, nearly two years of educational losses, bankrupted small business, depression and drug overdoses, overall citizen demoralization, violations of religious freedom, all while public health massively neglected the actual at-risk population in long-term care facilities. Essentially, they were willing to dismantle everything we called civilization in the name of bludgeoning one pathogen without regard to the consequences.  The fake science of population-wide “models” drove policy instead of following the known information about risk profiles. “The one unusual feature of this virus was the fact that children had an extraordinarily low risk,” writes Atlas. “Yet this positive and reassuring news was never emphasized. Instead, with total disregard of the evidence of selective risk consistent with other respiratory viruses, public health officials recommended draconian isolation of everyone.” “Restrictions on liberty were also destructive by inflaming class distinctions with their differential impact,” he writes, “exposing essential workers, sacrificing low-income families and kids, destroying single-parent homes, and eviscerating small businesses, while at the same time large companies were bailed out, elites worked from home with barely an interruption, and the ultra-rich got richer, leveraging their bully pulpit to demonize and cancel those who challenged their preferred policy options.” In the midst of continued chaos, in August 2020, Atlas was called by Trump to help, not as a political appointee, not as a PR man for Trump, not as a DC fixer but as the only person who in nearly a year of unfolding catastrophe had a health-policy focus. He made it clear from the outset that he would only say what he believed to be true; Trump agreed that this was precisely what he wanted and needed. Trump got an earful and gradually came around to a more rational view than that which caused him to wreck the American economy and society with his own hands and against his own instincts.  In Task Force meetings, Atlas was the only person who showed up with studies and on-the-ground information as opposed to mere charts of infections easily downloadable from popular websites. “A bigger surprise was that Fauci did not present scientific research on the pandemic to the group that I witnessed. Likewise, I never heard him speak about his own critical analysis of any published research studies. This was stunning to me. Aside from intermittent status updates about clinical trial enrollments, Fauci served the Task Force by offering an occasional comment or update on vaccine trial participant totals, mostly when the VP would turn to him and ask.” When Atlas spoke up, it was almost always to contradict Fauci/Birx but he received no backing during meetings, only to have many people in attendance later congratulate him for speaking out. Still, he did, by virtue of private meetings, have a convert in Trump himself, but by then it was too late: not even Trump could prevail against the wicked machine he had permissioned into operation.  It’s a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington story but applied to matters of public health. From the outset of this disease panic, policy came to be dictated by two government bureaucrats (Fauci and Birx) who, for some reason, were confident in their control over media, bureaucracies, and White House messaging, despite every attempt by the president, Atlas, and a few others to get them to pay attention to the actual science about which Fauci/Birx knew and care little.  When Atlas would raise doubts about Birx, Jared Kushner would repeatedly assure him that “she is 100% MAGA.” Yet we know for certain that this is not true. We know from a different book on the subject that she only took the position with the anticipation that Trump would lose the presidency in the November election. That’s hardly a surprise; it’s the bias expected from a career bureaucrat working for a deep-state institution. Fortunately, we now have this book to set the record straight. It gives every reader an inside look at the workings of a system that wrecked our lives. If the book finally declines to offer an explanation for the hell that was visited upon us – every day we still ask the question why? – it does provide an accounting of the who, when, where, and what. Tragically, too many scientists, media figures, and intellectuals in general went along. Atlas’s account shows exactly what they signed up to defend, and it’s not pretty.  The cliche that kept coming to mind as I read is “breath of fresh air.” That metaphor describes the book perfectly: blessed relief from relentless propaganda. Imagine yourself trapped in an elevator with stultifying air in a building that is on fire and the smoke gradually seeps in from above. Someone is in there with you and he keeps assuring you that everything is fine, when it is obviously not.  That’s a pretty good description of how I felt from March 12, 2020 and onward. That was the day that President Trump spoke to the nation and announced that there would be no more travel from Europe. The tone in his voice was spooky. It was obvious that more was coming. He had clearly fallen sway to extremely bad advice, perhaps he was willing to push lockdowns as a plan to deal with a respiratory virus that was already widespread in the US from perhaps 5 to 6 months earlier.  It was the day that the darkness descended. A day later (March 13), the HHS distributed its lockdown plans for the nation. That weekend, Trump met for many hours with Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and only a few others. He came around to the idea of shutting down the American economy for two weeks. He presided over the calamitous March 16, 2020, press conference, at which Trump promised to beat the virus through general lockdowns.  Of course he had no power to do that directly but he could urge it to happen, all under the completely delusional promise that doing so would solve the virus problem. Two weeks later, the same gang persuaded him to extend the lockdowns.  Trump went along with the advice because it was the only advice he was fed at the time. They made it appear that the only choice that Trump had – if he wanted to beat the virus – was to wage war on his own policies that were pushing for a stronger, healthier economy. After surviving two impeachment attempts, and beating back years of hate from a nearly united media afflicted by severe derangement syndrome, Trump was finally hornswoggled.  Atlas writes: “On this highly important criterion of presidential management—taking responsibility to fully take charge of policy coming from the White House—I believe the president made a massive error in judgment. Against his own gut feeling, he delegated authority to medical bureaucrats, and then he failed to correct that mistake.” The truly tragic fact that both Republicans and Democrats do not want spoken about is that this whole calamity is that did indeed begin with Trump’s decision. On this point, Atlas writes: Yes, the president initially had gone along with the lockdowns proposed by Fauci and Birx, the “fifteen days to slow the spread,” even though he had serious misgivings. But I still believe the reason that he kept repeating his one question—“Do you agree with the initial shutdown?”—whenever he asked questions about the pandemic was precisely because he still had misgivings about it. Large parts of the narrative are devoted to explaining precisely how and to what extent Trump had been betrayed. “They had convinced him to do exactly the opposite of what he would naturally do in any other circumstance,” Atlas writes, that is  “to disregard his own common sense and allow grossly incorrect policy advice to prevail…. This president, widely known for his signature “You’re fired!” declaration, was misled by his closest political intimates. All for fear of what was inevitable anyway—skewering from an already hostile media. And on top of that tragic misjudgment, the election was lost anyway. So much for political strategists.” There are so many valuable parts to the story that I cannot possibly recount them all. The language is brilliant, e.g. he calls the media “the most despicable group of unprincipled liars one could ever imagine.” He proves that assertion in page after page of shocking lies and distortions, mostly driven by political goals.  I was particularly struck by his chapter on testing, mainly because that whole racket mystified me throughout. From the outset, the CDC bungled the testing part of the pandemic story, attempting to keep the tests and process centralized in DC at the very time when the entire nation was in panic. Once that was finally fixed, months too late, mass and indiscriminate PCR testing became the desiderata of success within the White House. The problem was not just with the testing method: “Fragments of dead virus hang around and can generate a positive test for many weeks or months, even though one is not generally contagious after two weeks. Moreover, PCR is extremely sensitive. It detects minute quantities of virus that do not transmit infection…. Even the New York Times wrote in August that 90 percent or more of positive PCR tests falsely implied that someone was contagious. Sadly, during my entire time at the White House, this crucial fact would never even be addressed by anyone other than me at the Task Force meetings, let alone because for any public recommendation, even after I distributed data proving this critical point.” The other problem is the wide assumption that more testing (however inaccurate) of whomever, whenever was always better. This model of maximizing tests seemed like a leftover from the HIV/AIDS crisis in which tracing was mostly useless in practice but at least made some sense in theory. For a widespread and mostly wild respiratory disease transmitted the way a cold virus is transmitted, this method was hopeless from the beginning. It became nothing but make work for tracing bureaucrats and testing enterprises that in the end only provided a fake metric of “success” that served to spread public panic.  Early on, Fauci had clearly said that there was no reason to get tested if you had no symptoms. Later, that common-sense outlook was thrown out the window and replaced with an agenda to test as many people as possible regardless of risk and regardless of symptoms. The resulting data enabled Fauci/Birx to keep everyone in a constant state of alarm. More test positivity to them implied only one thing: more lockdowns. Businesses needed to close harder, we all needed to mask harder, schools needed to stay closed longer, and travel needed to be ever more restricted. That assumption became so entrenched that not even the president’s own wishes (which had changed from Spring to Summer) made any difference.  Atlas’s first job, then, was to challenge this whole indiscriminate testing agenda. To his mind, testing needed to be about more than accumulating endless amounts of data, much of it without meaning; instead, testing should be directed toward a public-health goal. The people who needed tests were the vulnerable populations, particularly those in nursing homes, with the goal of saving lives among those who were actually threatened with severe outcomes. This push to test, contact trace, and quarantine anyone and everyone regardless of known risk was a huge distraction, and also caused huge disruption in schooling and enterprise.  To fix it meant changing the CDC guidelines. Atlas’s story of attempting to do that is eye-opening. He wrestled with every manner of bureaucrat and managed to get new guidelines written, only to find that they had been mysteriously reverted to the old guidelines one week later. He caught the “error” and insisted that his version prevail. Once they were issued by the CDC, the national press was all over it, with the story that the White House was pressuring the scientists at the CDC in terrible ways. After a week-long media storm, the guidelines changed yet again. All of Atlas’s work was made null.  Talk about discouraging! It was also Atlas’s first full experience in dealing with deep-state machinations. It was this way throughout the lockdown period, a machinery in place to implement, encourage, and enforce endless restrictions but no one person in particular was there to take responsibility for the policies or the outcomes, even as the ostensible head of state (Trump) was on record both publicly and privately opposing the policies that no one could seem to stop.  As an example of this, Atlas tells the story of bringing some massively important scientists to the White House to speak with Trump: Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, Joseph Ladapo, and Cody Meissner. People around the president thought the idea was great. But somehow the meeting kept being delayed. Again and again. When it finally went ahead, the schedulers only allowed for 5 minutes. But once they met with Trump himself, the president had other ideas and prolonged the meeting for an hour and a half, asking the scientists all kinds of questions about viruses, policy, the initial lockdowns, the risks to individuals, and so on.  The president was so impressed with their views and knowledge – what a dramatic change that must have been for him – that he invited filming to be done plus pictures to be taken. He wanted to make it a big public splash. It never happened. Literally. White House press somehow got the message that this meeting never happened. The first anyone will have known about it other than White House employees is from Atlas’s book.  Two months later, Atlas was instrumental in bringing in not only two of those scientists but also the famed Sunetra Gupta of Oxford. They met with the HHS secretary but this meeting too was buried in the press. No dissent was allowed. The bureaucrats were in charge, regardless of the wishes of the president.  Another case in point was during Trump’s own bout with Covid in early October. Atlas was nearly sure that he would be fine but he was forbidden from talking to the press. The entire White House communications office was frozen for four days, with no one speaking to the press. This was against Trump’s own wishes. This left the media to speculate that he was on his deathbed, so when he came back to the White House and announced that Covid is not to be feared, it was a shock to the nation. From my own point of view, this was truly Trump’s finest moment. To learn of the internal machinations happening behind the scenes is pretty shocking.  I can’t possibly cover the wealth of material in this book, and I expect this brief review to be one of several that I write. I do have a few disagreements. First, I think the author is too uncritical toward Operation Warp Speed and doesn’t really address how the vaccines were wildly oversold, to say nothing of growing concerns about safety, which were not addressed in the trials. Second, he seems to approve of Trump’s March 12th travel restrictions, which struck me as brutal and pointless, and the real beginning of the unfolding disaster. Third, Atlas inadvertently seems to perpetuate the distortion that Trump recommended ingesting bleach during a press conference. I know that this was all over the papers. But I’ve read the transcript of that press conference several times and find nothing like this. Trump actually makes clear that he was speaking about cleaning surfaces. This might be yet another case of outright media lies.  All that aside, this book reveals everything about the insanity of 2020 and 2021, years in which good sense, good science, historical precedent, human rights, and concerns for human liberty were all thrown into the trash, not just in the US but all over the world. Atlas summarizes the big picture: “in considering all the surprising events that unfolded in this past year, two in particular stand out. I have been shocked at the enormous power of government officials to unilaterally decree a sudden and severe shutdown of society—to simply close businesses and schools by edict, restrict personal movements, mandate behavior, regulate interactions with our family members, and eliminate our most basic freedoms, without any defined end and with little accountability.” Atlas is correct that “the management of this pandemic has left a stain on many of America’s once noble institutions, including our elite universities, research institutes and journals, and public health agencies. Earning it back will not be easy.”  Internationally, we have Sweden as an example of a country that (mostly) kept its sanity. Domestically, we have South Dakota as an example of a place that stayed open, preserving freedom throughout. And thanks in large part to Atlas’s behind-the-scenes work, we have the example of Florida, whose governor did care about the actual science and ended up preserving freedom in the state even as the elderly population there experienced the greatest possible protection from the virus.  We all owe Atlas an enormous debt of gratitude, for it was he who persuaded the Florida governor to choose the path of focussed protection as advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration, which Atlas cites as the “single document that will go down as one of the most important publications in the pandemic, as it lent undeniable credibility to focused protection and provided courage to thousands of additional medical scientists and public health leaders to come forward.” Atlas experienced the slings, arrows, and worse. The media and the bureaucrats tried to shut him up, shut him down, and body bag him professionally and personally. Cancelled, meaning removed from the roster of functional, dignified human beings. Even colleagues at Stanford University joined in the lynch mob, much to their disgrace. And yet this book is that of a man who has prevailed against them. In that sense, this book is easily the most crucial first-person account we have so far. It is gripping, revealing, devastating for the lockdowners and their vaccine-mandating successors, and a true classic that will stand the test of time. It’s simply not possible to write the history of this disaster without a close examination of this erudite first-hand account.  Tyler Durden Sun, 11/28/2021 - 12:30.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 28th, 2021

The Road To Fascism: Paved With Vaccine Mandates And Corporate Collusion

The Road To Fascism: Paved With Vaccine Mandates And Corporate Collusion Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute, “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau We are moving fast down the road to fascism. This COVID-19 pandemic has shifted us into high gear. The heavy-handed collusion between the Techno-Corporate State and the U.S. government over vaccine mandates is merely the latest manifestation of the extent to which fascist forces are working to overthrow our constitutional republic and nullify the rights of the individual. In early November 2021, the Biden Administration drew its line in the sand for more than 100 million American workers: get vaccinated against COVID-19 (by Nov. 22 for federal workers, and Jan. 4 for federal contractors and companies with more than 100 employees) or else. Or else what? For many individuals with sincere objections to the vaccine, either based on their religious beliefs or some other medical or philosophical concern, non-compliance with workplace vaccine mandates will mean losing their jobs and the possibility of no unemployment benefits. One survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management estimated that 28% of employed Americans wouldn’t get a COVID vaccine even if it meant losing their jobs. Although OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is requiring that employees be paid for the time it takes to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects, those who refuse to get vaccinated but keep their jobs will have to test negative for COVID weekly and could be made to shoulder the costs of those weekly tests. Healthcare workers are not being given an option for testing: it’s the vaccine or nothing. To give the government’s arm-twisting some added strength, companies that violate the workplace mandate rules “can face fines of up to $13,653 per violation for serious violations and 10 times that for willful or repeated violations.” In other words, as Katrina Trinko writes for USA Today, “the government is turning employers—who are not paid by, nor work for, the government—into an army of vaccine enforcers.” You know who won’t suffer any harm as a result of these vaccine mandates? The Corporate State (manufacturers, distributors, and health care providers), which were given a blanket “get out of jail” card to insulate them from liability for any injuries or death caused by the vaccines. While this vaccine mandate is being presented as a “targeted” mandate as opposed to a national mandate that impacts the entire population, it effectively leaves those with sincere objections to the COVID vaccine with very little options beyond total compliance or unemployment. This has long since ceased to be a debate over how best to protect the populace at large against an unknown pandemic. Rather, it has become a massively intrusive, coercive and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self and private property. As such, these COVID-19 mandates have become the new battleground in the government’s tug-of-war over bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty. Already, the legal challenges to these vaccine mandates are piling up before the courts. Before long, divided circuit court rulings will make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be asked to decide whether these mandates constitute government overreach or a natural extension of the government’s so-called emergency powers. With every new court ruling that empowers corporations and the government to use heavy-handed tactics to bring about vaccine compliance, with every new workplace mandate that forces employees to choose between their right to bodily autonomy and economic livelihood, and with every new piece of legislation that insulates corporations and the government from being held accountability for vaccine injuries and deaths, our property interest in our bodies is diminished. At a minimum, our right to individual sovereignty over our lives and our bodies is being usurped by power-hungry authoritarians; greedy, self-serving corporations; egotistical Nanny Staters who think they know what’s best for the rest of the populace; and a short-sighted but well-meaning populace which fails to understand the long-term ramifications of trading their essential freedoms for temporary promises of safety and security. We are more vulnerable now than ever before. This debate over bodily autonomy, which covers broad territory ranging from forced vaccinations, abortion and euthanasia to forced blood draws, biometric surveillance and basic healthcare, has far-reaching ramifications for who gets to decide what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. On a daily basis, Americans are already being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent. This merely pushes us one step further down that road towards a total control society in which the government in collusion with Corporate America gets to decide who is “worthy” of being allowed to take part in society. Right now, COVID-19 vaccines are the magic ticket for gaining access to the “privileges” of communal life. Having already conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be. The government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry. When all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle, we should all be leery and afraid. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, nothing good can come from totalitarian tactics - no matter how benevolent they appear - that are used to make us cower, fear and comply with the government’s dictates. Tyler Durden Thu, 11/18/2021 - 23:00.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 19th, 2021

Why Biden"s Vaccine Mandate Hasn"t Delivered The Promised Results

Why Biden's Vaccine Mandate Hasn't Delivered The Promised Results Authored by Gilbert Berdine, M.D., via The Mises Institute, The conflict over covid vaccines is coming to a climax. The Biden administration released its vaccine mandate. Enterprises with more than one hundred employees will be required to demonstrate that all employees either are fully vaccinated or both wear masks and are tested on a weekly basis. Texas has already challenged the constitutional basis for the mandate and the initial federal court ruling has blocked the mandate. The final court outcome of this case is uncertain. The scientific basis for the mandate is dubious. We are told that the vaccine is effective and safe. If this assertion were true, there would be no reason for coercion, as everyone would voluntarily take the vaccine. Furthermore, anyone taking the vaccine would have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. If the vaccine worked, then everyone taking the vaccine would be protected. Of course, the vaccine does not work for everyone. Since the vaccine does not work for everyone, it becomes a judgment call whether the risk of vaccination is worth the benefit. Contrary to what is claimed on a daily basis, the vaccine is not safe. There is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database of adverse effects. As of November 7, 2021, there were 2,725,582 adverse events in 634,609 adverse event reports, including 8,284 deaths, 9,726 life-threatening events, 9,580 permanent disabilities, 363 congenital anomalies or birth defects, 38,818 hospitalizations, 79,615 ER visits, and 121,100 doctor's office visits attributed to the covid vaccines. These are only the risks we know about so far. Nobody knows what the adverse effects will be one, five, or ten years from now. The risk versus benefit calculation is purely subjective, as the risks are unknown currently. Even if the total risk were limited to what is currently known, the risk versus benefit calculation would remain purely subjective, because death from covid and death from blood clots and other known covid vaccine complications are not directly comparable, as individual fear of one type of death is not equal to the fear of all other types of death. Furthermore, the benefits to society of an individual covid vaccination are not necessarily the same for the person taking the risk of the vaccination due to the very large disparity in risk versus age. While it may be noble to voluntarily accept a risk to benefit someone else, it is immoral to coerce someone to accept a risk to benefit someone else. How effective are the vaccines? Claims of effectiveness are based on selective use of data that do not represent a true cross section of the population. I have previously shown the benefit of an increasing vaccination rate to be very small in the US. Source: Data for the fifty US states and the District of Columbia. Each data point represents a state or DC. Vaccination rates are from usafacts.org. Covid deaths are from Worldometer. Data are from August 25, 2021. Figure 1 analyzes efficacy based on the entire US population. The number to vaccinate in order to prevent a single death can be calculated from the slope of the regression line. As of August 25, 2021, it takes over twenty-five hundred vaccinations to prevent a single death in the US. The data for the developed world are worse. The slope of the regression line for a plot of new cases versus percentage of the population vaccinated is positive for the eighty countries with the highest per capita GDP—increasing vaccination rate increases the number of new covid cases. The Biden mandate, as structured, does not make any scientific sense. The goal of the mandate is to ensure a safe working environment. However, there is no scientific evidence that covid vaccines prevent the transmission of the virus or decrease the viral load in infected persons. A fully vaccinated worker can transmit covid to coworkers, so any testing requirements for safe work environment reasons should equally apply to all workers irrespective of vaccination status. At this time, the only scientific argument in favor of vaccination is that one may be less likely to be hospitalized or die from covid following vaccination, but that has nothing to do with work environment safety. There is no scientific basis for extending the mandate to enterprises with one hundred or more employees. As stated above, it takes over twenty-five hundred vaccinations to prevent a single death. The mandate cannot be justified for enterprises with fewer than about five thousand workers. The only way we will be able to make informed decisions about vaccination in the future is by monitoring adverse events. A vaccine mandate, if effective, would eliminate the control population, making it impossible to determine whether adverse events are due to the vaccine. There is no scientific justification for eliminating the control group, but perhaps this is a “feature rather than a bug,” to shield pharmaceutical companies from future liability. Mandating a 100 percent compliance rate for an experimental vaccine with completely unknown long-term consequences is hubris on an unprecedented scale. The Biden mandate could be the CDC’s attempt to win the next Darwin Award and unwittingly solve the Fermi Paradox. What would the effect of 100 percent vaccination rate be on the virus? Contrary to claims, the virus will not disappear. The next outbreak would occur within a year and would be 100 percent breakthrough cases with a vaccine-resistant strain. Then we would need another vaccine mandate, and another, ad infinitum. There is a presumption that a vaccine mandate will even increase the number of vaccinations. Just as proponents of lockdowns failed to predict the adverse consequences of lockdowns, the proponents of vaccine mandates have failed to predict what will actually take place. My predictions about lockdowns were pretty spot on. It will take some time to resolve the court challenges against vaccine mandates. The outcomes of these challenges are uncertain. If the courts fail to protect individual autonomy, I predict four possible outcomes for society. The least harmful outcome would be for black markets to emerge enabling those who decline vaccination to pretend that they have been vaccinated. Possible black markets include fake vaccine certificates. The fakes could include counterfeit documents, healthcare workers selling legitimate certificates, or healthcare workers issuing a legitimate certificate after jabbing someone with saline. There will likely emerge a robust market for medical exemptions. Given that everyone has reason to fear myocarditis or adverse events from blood clots, any person has a legitimate reason to obtain a medical exemption from a licensed practitioner. The only question is whether practitioners will serve the legitimate health concerns of their patients or serve as shills for the Biden administration. If the black markets are not tolerated, the next least harmful scenario would be for individual states to refuse to enforce the mandates. I am hopeful for this scenario in my home state of Texas. Recent actions by the governor and attorney general of Texas give me reason to be optimistic. People who cannot live with the unvaccinated would migrate to states with enforced mandates, and people who decline vaccinations would migrate to states where there is no enforcement of mandates. This might remain peaceful—or not. I believe that proponents of mandates underestimate the degree of conviction of those who decline the covid vaccines. Wherever people are not permitted to remain unvaccinated, the next least harmful scenario is that a percentage of people will quit their jobs rather than be vaccinated. I estimate that at least 10 percent of physicians and 20 percent of nurses will quit rather than be vaccinated. This is already having adverse effects in some healthcare markets. The emergency medical services (EMS) system seems particularly vulnerable to this outcome. Southwest Airlines recently had disruption of service due to a “sickout” protest of the vaccine mandate. Similar events in hospitals could precipitate a catastrophic collapse of the US healthcare system. Be careful what you wish for. The worst-case scenario is outright civil war. This is too horrible to contemplate, but this possibility is real. President Biden said his patience is wearing thin. That works both ways. Things are getting tense in Australia. It could happen here, too. Tyler Durden Mon, 11/15/2021 - 13:10.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 15th, 2021

My coworkers refused to get vaccinated. So, I quit.

Veterinarians are part of the public-health system, which is designed to protect from disease - and ignorance. My coworkers lost sight of that. iStock; Skye Gould/Insider I recently quit my job as a veterinarian because many of my coworkers chose not to get vaccinated. Veterinarians are part of the public-health system, which is designed to protect from disease. My coworkers' decisions gave me a choice: stay and risk my health, or leave a job I loved. I left. This story was written by a veterinarian in the US. Their employment has been verified by Insider, but their byline is anonymous to prevent professional repercussions.On the day of the first lockdown in March 2020, I was in surgery, performing a spay on a large dog. The office manager broke the news, and for a minute, I stopped working - because at that moment, the world seemed to change. But while worlds change, they don't stand still. By the time I was out of surgery, I learned that veterinarians and vet techs were considered essential workers. Work would continue for us, limited to sick patients for the time being. We adapted our practice, instituting curbside service and devising ways to communicate with pet owners that did not require face-to-face contact.In the veterinary world, social distancing is impossible. Taking a blood sample from a nine-pound chihuahua requires at least two people, our heads often only six inches apart. Trimming the nails of a 90-pound dog is impossible if you cannot be closer than six feet from your assistant. Getty Images Looking back, those were golden days. Everyone at our clinic seemed to be part of the same team, working together for the good of our patients. In the wider world, I cheered as epidemiologists discovered the secrets to COVID-19 transmission and scientists turned new knowledge into safe, effective vaccines. I was awed by the bravery of my healthcare colleagues who risked their lives to treat COVID-19 patients firsthand. We had several COVID-19 exposure scares within the hospital. No vaccine was available then, and the county public-health department had us close the hospital each time while we were all tested and quarantined. While our hospital was closed, our concern was for the health of our coworkers, with text chains checking up on everyone and their families - at least, that's how it seemed to me. Veterinarians are part of the public-health system and must study public health as part of our veterinary education. We learn about epidemiology, infection statistics, vaccinations, testing, and the value of "herd health." We are part of a system designed to protect people from disease - and often from their own ignorance. For instance, I had a client who thought rabies merely causes drooling. Despite this misconception, she can safely live her life without knowing the horror of rabies because vaccination mandates for pets reduce her exposure to virtually nil. Getty Images Public-health efforts succeed when a group is united and seeks a unified goal. A population with a high vaccination rate - whether dogs, cattle, or humans - offers a wall of defense against a virus. There are fewer places for it to hide and fewer targets to infect. That wall is extremely important because breakthrough infections are possible, and there are members of our community who cannot yet be vaccinated (children under 5 years old) or who have increased risk for infection (immunocompromised people, the elderly, or those with other diseases). This is especially true in a work environment where one spends all day in close contact with colleagues and staff. That's why I felt such relief when vaccines were approved, and when, in January 2021, veterinarians and veterinary staff were added to the list of healthcare workers approved for vaccinations. Finally, we could see a glimmer of hope after so many months working with very little protection. Finally, there was a suit of armor to help us do our jobs with less risk. Finally, we could continue to provide care despite the pandemic around us. Some among us were quickly vaccinated and then eagerly shared vaccination info with co-workers so they could set up appointments. It took me about two months to realize that many of our staff who said they were having "difficulty getting the vaccine" actually had no intention of getting it. Before long, unvaccinated staff began spouting unscientific propaganda to justify why they refused the vaccine, and it became clear that I was not given the authority even to criticize their ignorance. Getty Images The inevitable happened, of course. We incurred more COVID-19 cases on staff. Unvaccinated staff were sent home while vaccinated staff continued to work, severely short-handed. At the same time, I repeatedly asked about the hospital's future vaccination plans and testing requirements, and I repeatedly received the same answer: There were no plans. No vaccination mandate, no testing requirement. Management was afraid unvaccinated staff would quit. So, I quit. The lack of COVID-19 vaccination or even testing requirements was not compatible with my training. If I wouldn't send a dog to a kennel where vaccinations were optional, why would I stay at my work? I have small children who cannot yet be vaccinated and older parents who help tend to them. Close and consistent exposure to unvaccinated staff puts my family at increased risk. I love my profession and my patients, and that love sustained me as an essential worker through the early COVID-19 lockdown. But I could not remain in a place with no intention of using the effective, available tools to insure a safer workplace. COVID-19 vaccinations and testing are part of workplace safety and public health. Allowing them to become politicized or opting out as part of an expression of political identity is a slippery slope. Getty Images No one wants to see rabies return as a widespread health hazard - nor measles, polio, mumps, diphtheria. We are able to ignore these diseases in our everyday lives because of public-health measures taken over the years to eradicate them. This requires a country united in effort and understanding, which is something I worry America has lost.Like many workers, I joined the Great Resignation. When evaluating current or future employment, everyone weighs the pros and cons: pay, benefits, childcare, commute time, career growth - and now, COVID-19 exposure. Pay is an issue for most job-seekers. But many employers may underestimate the role COVID-19 exposure plays in this evaluation. So many of us have loved ones who are at higher risk if they catch COVID-19 even while vaccinated. We love them a million times more than any job, and working in close proximity to unvaccinated coworkers increases the risk of spreading COVID-19. That's a major negative when looking at a job's overall appeal. Currently, the United States has lost more than 750,000 people to COVID-19. That equates to many grieving families. A majority of Americans are doing their part to end this pandemic by getting vaccinated. The Delta variant made it clear that, although the risks were significantly reduced for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, the risks are not gone.When we look at our workplaces and see unvaccinated coworkers - some who don't even wear a mask properly - and hear management consistently refuse to require vaccinations or testing, the question becomes: Do I stay or go? I know what I chose.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 13th, 2021

10 States Sue Biden Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate For Healthcare Workers

10 States Sue Biden Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate For Healthcare Workers Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, A coalition of 10 states led by Missouri’s attorney general on Wednesday sued President Joe Biden over his administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. A federal court has blocked, for now, the administration’s private employer vaccine mandate, but a stricter one for healthcare workers remains in place. The healthcare worker mandate, which covers over 17 million nurses and others, does not include a testing opt-out. The coalition says the mandate is unlawful under federal law, in part because the federal government is trying to wrest away compulsory vaccination power that has “always been the province of—and still properly belongs to—the states.” “Vaccination requirements are matters that depends on local factors and conditions. Whatever might make sense in New York City, St Louis, or Omaha could be decidedly counterproductive and harmful in rural communities like Memphis, Missouri or McCook, Nebraska,” the 58-page filing in federal court in Missouri says. “Federalism allows states to tailor such matters in the best interests of their communities. The heavy hand of CMS’s nationwide mandate does not. This court should thus set aside that rule as unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.” The mandate is poised to exacerbate an already “alarming shortage” of healthcare workers, the coalition said. As proof, they cite Dr. Randy Tobler, the CEO of Scotland County Hospital in Memphis, Missouri. He said that people working in his hospital informed him that if the mandate takes effect, they will not work at the hospital any longer. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, and Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor filed the suit with the attorneys general of Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire. All the attorneys general are Republicans. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service, or CMS, the agency that issued the rule, and the White House did not return requests for comment on the lawsuit. A nurse prepares a Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination in Los Angeles, Calif., on Aug. 23, 2021. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters) The Biden administration says the mandate will curb the transmission and spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. The rule acknowledges that many healthcare workers have recovered from COVID-19 and have some level of immunity as a result. But, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study that was challenged by some scientists, CMS says natural immunity is not allowed as an alternative to vaccination. CDC officials have acknowledged natural immunity exists but say even those with it can benefit from vaccination. A number of health experts share the view but a host of others say vaccination isn’t necessary among the recovered. CMS officials say the agency has the legal authority to issue a vaccine mandate through several sections of the Social Security Act, though the rule notes that CMS has never required vaccinations before. Healthcare facilities that don’t comply with the mandate face a series of penalties, including fines. They could be ousted from Medicare and Medicaid programs, a senior administration official told reporters on a call last week. One official later explained why there’s not a testing opt-out, a major difference between the rule and the private employer mandate. “We have a higher bar for healthcare workers, given their critical role in ensuring the health and safety of their patients,” the official said. “And so, it’s either vaccination or an exemption under the rules outlined.” Tyler Durden Thu, 11/11/2021 - 19:40.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 11th, 2021

United Airlines May Can Unvaccinated Workers, Even With Exemptions

United May Can Unvaccinated Workers, Even With Exemptions – Court; That, Plus Recent Supreme Court Actions, OKs Most Effective Vax Weapon [soros] Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more United Airlines Can Put Unvaccinated Employees On Unpaid Leave A federal judge in Texas has held that United Airlines can put employees who have refused […] United May Can Unvaccinated Workers, Even With Exemptions – Court; That, Plus Recent Supreme Court Actions, OKs Most Effective Vax Weapon [soros] Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more United Airlines Can Put Unvaccinated Employees On Unpaid Leave A federal judge in Texas has held that United Airlines can put employees who have refused to be vaccinated on unpaid leave, even if they have medical or religious exemptions. This, plus three recent strikes from the Supreme Court, mean that companies seem to have a green light to use the same technique which also proved so effective in fighting the earlier health crisis caused by smoking, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who says they should do so regarding of whether court action stays the federal OSHA mandatory vaccine policy for larger companies. The most recent Supreme Court ruling, refusing to block a requirement by Maine that its health care workers be vaccinated against Covid, was especially significant because the Maine rule did not permit exceptions for religious objections, and because it was rendered by the entire court. A similar request to stay a requirement by Indiana University that its students be vaccinated was turned down for the Court by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But that university’s requirement permitted exceptions for religious, ethical and medical reasons; and they were virtually guaranteed to anyone who sought an exemption. Another legal strike against anti-vaxxers’ legal arguments occurred when the High Court refused to stop a vaccination requirement for virtually all personnel in New York City’s school system. A Green Light For Companies To Use The Same Tactics These three rulings – as well as earlier ones by lower courts and the new one in Texas – provide a green light for companies to use the same tactics which proved so effective in fighting a similar public health crisis, likewise fueled by a massive disinformation campaign, says Banzhaf, who established and then led the nonsmokers’ rights movement which got millions to quit and saved hundreds of billions of dollars. Using a stick is much more effective than a carrot in preventing unnecessary deaths and disabilities from smoking and also now also from Covid, says Banzhaf, who led the successful battle to save millions of smoker lives, and who has already begun contributing to saving lives threatened by Covid. Actually, says Banzhaf, “stick” is a misnomer since the measures proven to be so effective in getting smokers to quit, and now getting holdouts to be vaccinated, aren’t designed to punish their unhealthy conduct, but rather to prevent them from continuing to inflict the damage it causes on the majority in the form of risks to life and health, as well as in huge additional financial costs. It has long been known that warnings and other health messages – even when coupled with incentives such as medical assistance and financial rewards – were not very effective in getting smokers to quit; in part because they had to try to overcome a massive disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry. Bans On Smoking What was effective instead were restrictions and requirements – e.g., bans on smoking on airplanes, at public places, and in workplaces – says Banzhaf, who led the fight for smoking bans during flights and then elsewhere. The purpose was not to punish smokers (a stick) but rather to protect nonsmokers; but, by making it very inconvenient not to quit, many smokers yielded to that incentive, he says. He adds that when companies went further and started insisting on having a smoker-free work force, similar to a drug-free work force, compliance – despite some initial grumbling and treats of quitting – went even higher. In addition, by requiring smokers to bear more of the huge medical and other costs they had been imposing on others, the incentive to quit was substantially increased, and became even more effective. Banzhaf cites as examples the higher premiums he and the NAIC helped persuade health insurance companies to charge smokers, and especially the 50% smoker surcharge he helped to have included under Obamacare. The professor explains that the purpose of these financial moves once again was not so much to punish smokers or to pressure them to quit, but simply so that the huge costs they were imposing – estimated to be over $12,000/yr annually per smoker – would not be borne by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes, lower workplace benefits, and ballooning health insurance premiums. Making Being Unvaccinated More Inconvenient And Expensive Now experience, backed up by research, is proving that the same strategy – making being unvaccinated more inconvenient and expensive – is, as with smoking, more effective than warnings and cajoling in getting people vaccinated. In other words, making employees and patrons at public venues provide proof of vaccination, requiring those who might be permitted to remain unvaccinated to pay for their own frequent Covid tests, charging higher health and other insurance rates for unvaccinated people (and also for any unvaccinated persons on their plans), and even declining to perform some medical operations on those refusing to be vaccinated, is the most effective way to fight Covid, and to protect the majority of Americans from infection, argues Banzhaf. Surveys suggest that these measures are also favored by a majority of Americans. Here are a few examples: A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that lotteries to encourage vaccinations have little effect – “no statistically significant association” – in achieving that goal. In contrast, New York’s vaccination requirement get some 90% of its health care workers vaccinated. Indeed, the figures from even a month ago demonstrate the amazing effectiveness of New York’s requirement that health workers be vaccinated: Strong Memorial Hospital quickly achieved a 95.5% vaccination rate Albany Medical Center’s vaccination rate leaped to 98% St. Barnabas Hospital went from 20% unvaccinated to about 3% The Mohawk Valley Health System went up from 70% to about 96% Delta Airlines Achieved An Over 80% Compliance Rate United Airlines, one of the first big companies to require workers to be vaccinated or lose their jobs, found that, despite initial grumbling, about 99% of its employees agreed to be vaccinated. Similarly, Delta Airlines achieved an over 80% compliance rate by charging those who decline to be vaccinated a $200-per-month health insurance surcharge. Ochsner Health, the largest nonprofit health care system in Louisiana, now has the same surcharge. After Tyson Foods announced a vaccine requirement in early August, its vaccination rate jumped from 50% to at least 80%, even before the deadline for getting a shot. Novant Health in North Carolina, which originally announced that 375 of its 35,000 employees had been suspended and would soon be fired for being unvaccinated, found that 200 of the 375 finally did get vaccinated to keep their jobs, Despite a few widely reported situations where many employees threatened to quit – usually in situations where defiance was encouraged and led by recalcitrant unions – vaccine requirements have generally been very effective, are gaining in public support, have largely been upheld by the courts, and have lead to very few actual firings – the same results which occurred many years ago when companies first banned smoking on the job, and later even off the job. Making those who refuse to be vaccinated bear the consequences of their decisions – i.e., imposing some “personal responsibility” – has proven to be a very effective weapon in saving lives, and in helping to return life (especially life in the workplace and in many public places) to a near normal, with even less need if any for the vaccinated to be burdened with mask requirements, proclaims Banzhaf. Updated on Nov 9, 2021, 2:42 pm (function() { var sc = document.createElement("script"); sc.type = "text/javascript"; sc.async = true;sc.src = "//mixi.media/data/js/95481.js"; sc.charset = "utf-8";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s); }()); window._F20 = window._F20 || []; _F20.push({container: 'F20WidgetContainer', placement: '', count: 3}); _F20.push({finish: true});.....»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkNov 9th, 2021

11,000 Boeing employees, nearly 9% of its US workforce, have asked to be exempt from the company"s vaccine mandate, report says

Boeing had been expecting COVID-19 vaccine exemptions from around 2% of the workforce, sources told Reuters. Nearly 9% of Boeing's US workforce has requested vaccine exemptions, sources told Reuters. BlueBarronPhoto/Shutterstock More than 11,000 of Boeing's US employees have asked to be exempt from the vaccine mandate, sources told Reuters. The company has received more vaccine exemption requests than it had expected, sources told Reuters. Boeing delayed its deadline for staff to comply with Biden's vaccine mandate by one month, per Reuters. Nearly 9% of Boeing's US workforce has requested an exemption to the planemaker's vaccine mandate, much more than the company had expected, Reuters first reported, citing people familiar with the matter.More than 11,000 workers have requested the exemption on religious or medical grounds, the people told Reuters. The company had been expecting vaccine exemptions from around 2% of the workforce, Reuters cited sources as saying.Boeing executives are desperate to find a solution that keeps staff protected from COVID-19 and complies with the Biden administration's vaccination mandate, but also prevents many people leaving the company, the people told Reuters.President Joe Biden's vaccine rules, which apply to the federal government workforce and anybody working for a company with more than 100 employees, will take effect on January 4, the White House announced on Thursday.Out of 11,000 people looking for exemptions, those requesting a religious exemption hit more than 10,000, one person with knowledge of the matter told Reuters. Another person told Reuters more than 11,300 staff members have filed a religious exemption.Around 1,000 workers have filed a medical exemption, another person familiar with the situation told Reuters.Boeing said last month that it would require its 125,000 US workers to get vaccinated, according to an earlier story from Reuters. Boeing says on its website that it employs more than 140,000 people worldwide.A company spokesperson told Insider that the firm is "committed to maintaining a safe working environment for our employees, and advancing the health and safety of our global workforce is fundamental to our values."Boeing pushed back its deadline for all workers to get vaccinated, or tested regularly if they receive exemptions, by one month to January 4, according to a company email seen by Reuters, and to industry sources who spoke with the newswire.IAM District 751, Boeing's labor union, said on its website that the company's vaccine deadline was originally December 8, but has been delayed until January 4."Anyone who has not received their final dose or been approved for an accommodation, and registered their vaccination status by Jan. 4, will be issued a final warning, and will be expected to promptly come into compliance if they wish to remain employed at Boeing," the company email said, cited by Reuters.Employees who have exemptions from the mandate will be required to wear a face mask, socially distance, and regularly test for COVID-19, the Boeing email said, per Reuters.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 9th, 2021

Courageous LA County Sheriff Tells The Truth About COVID Vax Mandates

Courageous LA County Sheriff Tells The Truth About COVID Vax Mandates Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us, The battle over the attempted forced vaccination of 100% of the American population regardless of scientific reason or prudence has brought out the absolute worst within a certain group of people in our society. They are showing their true colors as the authoritarians they really are, desperately clamoring for the power to compel people they don’t know or care about to submit to an experimental covid “vaccine” with no long term testing to prove its safety. I noted this trend in detail in my recent article ‘Noam Chomsky Goes Off The Deep End – Proving All Socialism Leads To Tyranny’, and I have to say, there are some folks out there that are shockingly monstrous just under the surface. It makes one realize how the dictatorships and genocides of the 20th Century were made possible. Historians tend to blame the idea of the “charismatic dictator” for the rise of totalitarianism within any given culture, as if all it takes is a single well dressed and well spoken figure with the ability to manipulate the emotional output of the masses into doing things they would not otherwise do. This is a fantasy. In reality, dictators and oligarchs cannot come to power without the avid support of a certain subset of the population that WANTS and LOVES tyranny. That is to say, authoritarians in government appeal to the rotten core of the worst of humanity – the sociopaths, the narcissists, the psychopaths, the control freaks and micromanagers. They work hand-in-hand with the aberrant and the fearful, the deceitful and the grotesque, and they align with such people to make it appear as though authoritarianism is an overwhelming desire of the majority when it is actually the deviant thirst of an aggressive minority. Of course, as in physics, there is no action within human society without an equal and opposite reaction. Just as the covid mandates have brought out the worst in some people, they have also brought out the best in others. The people who love and respect logic, reason and individual liberty are massing. We are legion, and I have been consistently surprised at how many of us there are within government institutions including law enforcement. The Sheriff of LA County, Alex Villanueva, proved his courage this week with a public media address covering the destructive effects of the covid mandates on his own department, using cold hard data to show that thousands of personnel and deputies, 30% of the Sheriff’s department, will be leaving or will be forced out of work by LA County if the vaccine mandates move forward in January. He also faced down a torrent of some of the dumbest and most vitriolic questions I have ever heard from a crowd of clearly biased “journalists” (i.e. leftist activists) scrambling to cast doubt on the sheriff and his data. I recommend watching Sheriff Villanueva’s even handed and rational presentation in full here: Keep in mind that the Sheriff is a vaccinated person, but he continues to defend the rights of his deputies to make personal informed decisions on the jab. Being anti-mandate does not mean a person is necessarily “anti-vax”. I think the sheriff did an admirable job presenting his case so I won’t rehash it here. However, what I do want to talk about is some of the INSANE rhetoric coming form the reporters in the crowd as they tried to confront and brow-beat him on his information and personal stance. There were some facts that the Sheriff put forward that the media seemed to be especially triggered by, so let’s talk about these issues for a moment… Covid Mandates Are Not Laws Multiple leftist reporters were extremely perturbed by the notion that Sheriff Department personnel could be “allowed” to defy the mandates at all. This was perhaps the most revealing line of questioning from the media, showcasing their complete lack of knowledge on constitutional law and their inherent hunger for control. Primarily, the questioning asserted that deputies and other staff would be “breaking the law” by refusing to comply with the mandates, and the media compared non-compliance with the jab to criminal non-compliance with a traffic stop. Sheriff Villanueva rightly reminded reporters that covid mandates are NOT laws. The reporters didn’t seem to understand. One of them even suggested that this argument was “semantics”. No, it is not semantics. If mandates are “laws”, then our country’s legal system should be done away with entirely and all decisions should be made from on high by executive fiat, making people like Biden and his handlers dictators by default. Laws are passed by legislatures or voted on by the citizenry in the US. The vax mandates are what is called “Color of Law”; they are dictates passed down by executive order or through bureaucracy with no checks and balances and are presented as laws when they are not. There is no allowance for “mandates” in the US Constitution, and I would also remind covid cultists that there is also no allowance for “emergency powers” within the Bill of Rights. The government does not get to wake up one day and decide which rights you are allowed to have and which rights you are not allowed to have based on their arbitrary perception of a national emergency. Our rights our sacrosanct and not subject to the whims of government. One reporter asks if the Sheriff is supporting the idea that people should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to obey. The Sheriff says of course not, but this question is disingenuous at its core and assumes that “laws” are sacred in and of themselves. If a law is unconstitutional and immoral, then yes, each person absolutely has the right to shrug off that law. Laws do not matter. All that matters is what is right and what is wrong. One would hope that our society’s laws will reflect our society’s values and principles, but sometimes they stand in direct opposition to our moral compass. Covid mandates are not laws, and even if they were they would be both unconstitutional and immoral laws that do not deserve our respect. There is nothing wrong with refusing to obey an illegal and immoral order. Covid Cultists Don’t Think People Should Be Allowed To Leave Their Jobs Without Punishment I always thought that losing one’s job WAS supposed to be the punishment for being unvaxxed. Apparently this is not enough for the covid cultists. Reporters insinuate that people who don’t comply with the vax should be criminally prosecuted under the mandates (which are not laws), just as a person would be criminally prosecuted for not complying with a deputy during a traffic stop. This confirms my suspicion that leftists did not expect such a large number of people to risk their jobs to defy the mandates. Leftists and pro-authoritarians have no concept of valuing principles over one’s own comfort or safety, and so the large national opposition to the mandates has caught them off guard. Now they are facing the prospect that THEY will have to suffer real world consequences for their support of vax authoritarianism, and the leftists don’t like that. The Sheriff logically outlines the facts on the ground in terms of personnel and how many will be leaving or will be fired due to the mandates, and the numbers hit hard. With at least 30% of the department gone, law enforcement in LA County will be effectively crippled. They are already short-staffed as it is because of the LA County Board Of Supervisors and their woke agenda to “defund the police”. Suddenly, losing their police force is not sitting well with those same woke activists. The media was very aggressive in trying to cast doubt on the idea that many deputies and staff were leaving because of the mandates, which the Sheriff squashed immediately by making it clear that the losses could only be attributed to vax requirements and any other suggestion would be disingenuous. The bottom line is this: The system as we know it will shut down if the mandates are enforced. This is why Joe Biden and friends are waiting to enforce the mandates until AFTER the Christmas season. They know that businesses and industries across the board will be hobbled by the loss of 30% or more of their workers and that many government institutions will be unable to function with the loss of 10% of staff, let alone 30% or more. The media is already trying to paint the narrative that people forced out of their jobs because of the mandates are the BAD GUYS, not the victims. This is classic leftist gaslighting. They attack the population with their edicts, they offer a non-choice in terms of compliance, and then when a large number of people choose to make sacrifices rather than submit, the authoritarians label those people “criminals.” In other words, the message is: “Because you will not submit to my tyranny, you are hurting society. Your lack of submission to my authoritarianism is an attack on me and the greater good.” The Narrative Is More Important To Covid Cultists Than The Facts Reporters then argued that the Sheriff should be “evangelizing” for the vaccines instead of giving such a presentation. I find this use of language interesting. I have long said that pro-vaxxers are a kind of cult that ignores the science and has turned the national medical response into a political witch hunt against conservatives and liberty minded people. The media thinks the Sheriff of LA County should be “evangelizing” to his staff, which means they want him to stop publicly sharing data that disagrees with their religion because it could derail what they believe to be a “righteous crusade”. But the vax mandates have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with public control. Sheriff Villanueva rightly points out that people who are vaccinated should not be worried about the vax status of the person next to them. As I have argued over and over again ever since the vaccines were introduced: If the vaccines work then the unvaccinated pose no threat whatsoever to the vaccinated. If they don’t work, then why are they trying to mandate them in the first place? Vaccinated people still actively spread the virus. Highly vaccinated countries like Israel have the highest infection rates in the world. Vaccinated people make up the bulk of hospitalizations and deaths in majority vaccinated countries. Unvaccinated people who have natural immunity are up to 27 times more protected from covid than people who take the vaccines. These are the facts. Furthermore, the media absolutely refuses to openly discuss the actual death rate of the covid virus. The median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is a mere 0.27% according to the medical establishment and numerous peer reviewed studies. Who are the unvaxxed a threat to? 0.2% of the population? Why don’t those people take the vax and leave the rest of us alone? Does the science not matter anymore? There is no evidence that shows that the unvaccinated pose a threat to anyone. None. Zero. Yet, covid cultists are calling for the unvaxxed to suffer joblessness, poverty and possibly criminal prosecution for refusing to comply. This is madness, and when you allow insane people to take control of your society, collapse is sure to follow. I suspect that the media will attempt to bury this presentation by Sheriff Villanueva because it destroys the narrative that an overwhelming majority of law enforcement and other government employees are on board with the vax mandates. It also runs contrary to a number of lies surrounding the justifications for the experimental vaccines in general. Finally, the media reaction is so ridiculous and unhinged that one immediately sees the difference between the covid cult and a normal rational person like the Sheriff. They come off as zealots while he presents as wise. I applaud his reserve and calm demeanor in the face of such rabid stupidity, and I applaud his bravery in standing for truth in an era when truth is vilified. *  *  * If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE. Tyler Durden Mon, 11/08/2021 - 13:10.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 8th, 2021

Millions Of Federal Contractors Get More Flexibility Over Vaxx Mandate Enforcement, White House Waffles

Millions Of Federal Contractors Get More Flexibility Over Vaxx Mandate Enforcement, White House Waffles Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, New guidance released by the White House on Nov. 1 suggests that federal contractors will have significant leeway in enforcing President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Federal contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, United Airlines, IBM, UPS, and many more employ a significant number of Americans. The new guidance, released on the Safer Federal Workforce website, provides flexibility for those companies to determine how to enforce the mandate. “A covered contractor should determine the appropriate means of enforcement with respect to its employee at a covered contractor workplace who refuses to be vaccinated and has not been provided, or does not have a pending request for, an accommodation,” according to the guidelines. On Sept. 9, Biden announced mandates for federal workers, federal contractors, and most health care staff - differing from the forthcoming mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees stipulating that workers either get the vaccine or submit to weekly testing. Federal contractors have no option to be tested, and the only way by which workers can opt out is by seeking a medical or religious exemption. “Covered contractors are expected to comply with all requirements set forth in their contract,” the White House said. “Where covered contractors are working in good faith and encounter challenges with compliance with COVID-19 workplace safety protocols, the agency contracting officer should work with them to address these challenges. “If a covered contractor is not taking steps to comply, significant actions, such as termination of the contract, should be taken.” And a federal agency “may determine that a covered contractor employee who refuses to be vaccinated in accordance with a contractual requirement pursuant to [Biden’s executive order] will be denied entry to a Federal workplace, consistent with the agency’s workplace safety protocols,” it said. For workers who don’t want to get the vaccine, “a limited period of counseling and education, followed by additional disciplinary measures” may be necessary, according to the White House. “Removal occurs only after continued noncompliance.” The guidance also lays out requirements for federal employees and contractors to provide proof of vaccination and says “an attestation of vaccination by the covered contractor employee is not an acceptable substitute for documentation of proof of vaccination.” Under the guidance, a covered contractor is responsible for considering requests from employees for religious exemptions from vaccination. If a federal agency is considered a “joint employer” then the agency and contractor should review and consider what, if any, accommodation they should offer. The guidance says it is promulgated pursuant to federal law and supersedes any contrary state or local law or ordinance. It came after the head of a trade association suggested that some companies might terminate their contracts with the federal government ahead of a Dec. 8 deadline. Trucks fill up on gas at the One9 truck stop in Wildwood, Ga., on Oct. 20, 2021. (Jackson Elliott/The Epoch Times) Bill Sullivan, a vice president with the American Trucking Associations (ATA), suggested in an interview over the weekend that some firms likely won’t follow the mandate and will instead just drop their contracts with the government, saying that the potential loss of workers would be too great. Should those companies scrap their agreements, it will be harder for the federal government to move military vehicles, transport the National Guard, and transport food to troops around the United States. “I am confident but with heavy heart recognize a vaccine mandate will mean less capacity for the government as a customer of freight,” Sullivan told Politico on Oct. 31. “It has the potential to seriously impact military readiness,” he said of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate announced by Biden on Sept. 9. The Biden administration, he said, is using a one-size-fits-all strategy to mandate vaccines for Americans and suggested that officials didn’t think of all the possible scenarios that could have emerged. “I feel like the president has tried to be beautifully simple like this could apply to everybody, and by doing that, there will be an impact,” Sullivan told the outlet. Previously, the American Trucking Associations, the Cargo Air Association, and other trade groups have issued letters making ominous predictions about fallout associated with the vaccine mandate. They warned that the already stretched-thin supply chain would be subject to further strain as some workers will be laid off or will simply quit over the mandate. Other than mandating vaccinations for federal contractors and workers, the president also announced he would direct the Labor Department to create a rule mandating vaccines or regular testing for businesses with 100 or more workers, potentially affecting as many as 80 million private-sector employees. White House officials have expressed confidence that workers—when faced with the mandate—would instead opt in. Last week, COVID-19 response coordinator Jeff Zients told reporters at a news conference that after United Airlines and Tyson Foods announced their respective vaccine mandates, it pushed both companies’ vaccination rates to more than 90 percent. Zients also offered some reassurance last week that the mandate shouldn’t disrupt services as the holiday season approaches. “These processes play out across weeks, not days,” Zients said about a week ago. “And so, to be clear, we’re creating flexibility within the system. We’re offering people multiple opportunities to get vaccinated. There is not a cliff here.” But Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo signaled the White House won’t delay its plans around vaccine mandates. In an interview on Oct. 31 with CBS News, Raimondo said that a delay “would be a big mistake” and again stressed that the only way the U.S. economy will recover is by having every worker get vaccinated. Over the recent weekend, 10 attorneys general in Republican-led states filed a legal complaint against the Biden administration’s federal contractor mandate, arguing that the move is tantamount to a “power grab” and would imperil the U.S. economy. White House and ATA officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time. Tyler Durden Tue, 11/02/2021 - 17:45.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 2nd, 2021

Bitcoin: A Second Chance For The Muslim World?

Bitcoin: A Second Chance For The Muslim World? Authored by Asif Shiraz via BitcoinMagazine.com, Bitcoin is the sound money that the Muslim world needs to accelerate into the future... The Ottoman suppression of the printing press is a poster child case of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim world. Although there was no outright ban, there is no denying of a massively missed opportunity here: A civilization’s failure to adopt a groundbreaking technological change happening right next door. In its golden age, this same civilization that gave the world universities and hospitals, optics and algebra, even a precursor to the printing press itself, got so left behind in the later acceptance of technology, that its very own holy book, the Quran, waited for its first mass publication almost 300 years after Johannes Gutenberg chugged out the printed Bible. THE DECLINE But Islam’s Genesis Block was entirely different in character: A spirited but sundry assemblage of women and men whose most remarkable trait was their openness to new ideas. The idea of one God in a multitude of divine contenders. The idea of one bitcoin in a multitude of shitcoins … oops... sorry... mixing up my chronology! So anyway, this fraternity of early Islam, along with its keen aspiration of ushering in a just social and economic order, is also remarkable in a novel way for its time: It represents a death cross of reason’s moving average overtaking that of intuition in religious history. Bringing intellectual inquiry at par with mystical experience, it paved the way for its scions to delve into scientific skepticism, empiricism and experimental inquiry, with Robert Briffault going so far as to say that “Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and method.” But eventually, the music stopped, and the market corrected! There are many explanations for the downfall, most of them partially true, spanning decades and centuries, but if we want to point fingers, as human nature dictates, at some symbolic event, then it must be the Mongol destruction of the House of Wisdom, #SackOfBaghdad. In the age of manuscripts, so many books from Baghdad’s libraries were flung into the Tigris that a horse could walk across on them and the river ran black with scholars’ ink and red with the blood of martyrs. As the Muslim Ummah lost so many intellectuals and intellectual capital in this tumultuous period, its reaction has been, (understandably), like that of an intern finding herself in control of mission critical servers, where all the senior sys admins suddenly stepped down, died or disappeared. Your best reaction is this: I’m not touching this system, and the only commands I’ll ever execute are those handed down by the four illustrious system admins — founders of the established schools of jurisprudence. And so Islamic scholarship for hundreds of years has been in a maintenance mode. In Pakistan alone, over 12,000 Madrasa routinely teach the rules and regulations of exchanging gold and silver, centuries after its daily use has been replaced by fiat. SURVIVAL OF CORE TENETS But herein lies a wonderful irony. This code-freeze on innovation, which we otherwise disapprove of, did work to an extent as it was intended: It protected the core principles from being callously compromised or deliberately diluted in the hands of opportunists. Just like the extra caution and consensus in changing the U.S. constitution protected the principles of freedom and equality enshrined in it: Islamic law, too, enshrined core financial principles, that have been a thorn on the side of would-be reformers attempting to legalize fiat and modern banking in the name of Islamic Finance. The 12,000 semi-literate Madrasa students, parroting the provisions of the fair exchange of gold and silver from a 17th century syllabus citing a 9th century scholar, unwittingly become more correct than a Harvard doctorate in finance indoctrinated in the misguided larceny of fiat money! All because Muhammad ﷺ mandated sound money, just like Mises and Hayek after him, a tenet immutably crystallized in Fiqh — Islamic Jurisprudence. A business man himself, the Prophet of Islam possessed a sharp acumen for economics and finance. In modern parlance, he quickly rose the corporate ladder to become one of the youngest CEOs of his time tasked with turning around the failing business empire of the urbane female entrepreneur, Khadija. Impressed with the Prophet’s personality, Khadija quickly proposed to him, creating a power couple that changed the course of history. Just like Jesus turned out the money-lenders from the Second Temple, the Prophet of Islam, too, had a disdain for usury and outlawed most of the accompanying capitalist machinations, that contribute to the gross wealth disparities like 10% owning 76% of the assets. So he created some fundamental rules that constitute the bedrock of Islamic financial principles: Forbade usury (Riba), including interest. Still respecting the time value of money, the prohibition’s intent is to create a financial regime where profit and risk is shared between the entrepreneur and the investor. From a sound money perspective, it prohibits the core operation of issuing interest bearing bonds and T-Bills against which the central bank can inflate the money supply. Forbade uncertainty (Gharar), embodied in his famous quote, “Do not sell a fish which is still in the water.” Eliminates the possibility of fractional reserve, since outstanding debt cannot be monetized and traded further with, unless it’s paid. It also closes the tap on a myriad of derivative instruments that further inflate the money supply. Forbade speculation (Maisir), which includes outright gambling. Some scholars consider speculative market activity, like the Dogecoin phenomena, under the ambit of this ruling. Mandated sound money. The rules of obligatory charity tax in Islam are denominated in sound money. Muslim governments take the market price of gold, convert them to fiat prices, and announce the converted value to the public to pay the religious obligation of Zakat. But from a legal standpoint, it permanently establishes gold and silver (as well as a whole class of other products) as perpetual, religiously recognized money in Islam. These prohibitions are strong enough in Islamic theology that anyone who violates them is technically, “at war with Allah and his Prophet.” Which is why the Madrasa’s syllabus clings to “nature’s money” (Thaman-e-Khalqi): gold and silver. But of course, big governments, Muslim or otherwise, are a chip off the same block: Self-interest reigns supreme over ethical principles. In Pakistan alone, the religious case against fiat banking has been delayed and obstructed for over 40 years in the courts. The politics of deficit financing are so attractive that no one wants to surrender this magical money making wand. Voldemorts, all of them! In spite of these prohibitions, and in countries where religion dominates social values, Muslims still grew comfortable with paper money because it initially disguised itself as “warehouse receipts for gold” which duped the scholars into permitting it, but the jurisprudence failed to catch up with the subsequent thinning of this asset backing into its current meaningless extent. REFORM ATTEMPTS As the domino roll of national independences took place, four different threads of activity around banking spread in Muslim countries. First, the mainstream implementation of modern banking took root in every Muslim State, implemented in toto like its Western counterparts. Second, Islamic banking attempted to reshape things a little. Scholars familiar with both economics and Shariah attempted to “Islamize” banking via the new academic discipline of “Islamic finance.” But instead of faithfully creating platforms for risk-sharing and equity-based financing, it just followed the Medieval Triple Contract–like approach to practically clone existing financial products, accompanied by a plethora of research papers to justify it. Like a comedic quote from the cold war era, “Communism is the longest and most painful road from capitalism to capitalism,” contemporary Islamic finance, too, turned out to become the most painful and circuitous route from traditional banking to traditional banking, decorated with Arabic names! How the professional bankers duped these scholars and hijacked this effort is excellently explained by Harris Irfan in a podcast with our own Saifedean Ammous. Third, a large but silent majority of toothless Islamic scholars continues to exist who view all forms of banking with suspicion, but the growing chasm of knowledge gap between their education and the complexities of modern finance makes them unable to take back the narrative. Lastly, a much smaller band of Islamic scholars exist, like followers of the Sufi order of a British convert and his Basque disciple, as well as a scholar from Trinidad, who successfully identified the fundamental problem with modern banking from a Shariah perspective: its monetary foundation. You cannot “Islamize” a bank if you do not fix the money it operates on! Hence, their attempt to resuscitate the traditional Islamic gold dinar as a sound money alternative to fiat. GOLD DINAR: THE REAL ISLAMIC ALTERNATIVE Fiat money and its permissibility can be viewed through an important concept in Islamic theology, the Maqasid-e-Shariah: the goals or purpose of Shariah law. To illustrate this with a controversial example, consider a Shariah law which says you cannot punish a man or woman for adultery, unless you bring four eye witnesses to the sexual act (which is normally impossible). While Islam abhors adultery, the Maqasid is an attempt by scholars to understand why, instead of having a law that easily and swiftly punishes it, there exists one that makes it practically impossible to prosecute. They rationalized that it must be to shield people’s privacy and one-off slipups from society's nosy interference and appetite for punishment. According to Muhammad Asad, “… to make proof of adultery dependent on a voluntary, faith-inspired confession of the guilty parties themselves.” So the Maqasid points to some socially valuable goal that the law intends to achieve. The rationale of the financial laws of Shariah are similarly explained in terms of their goals: a just distribution of wealth, a money free from devaluation, a business contract free from usurious exploitation, and a regulatory regime that increases people’s wealth and well-being. Through a very elementary intuition, it is obvious that fiat currencies violate this principle of honesty and justice in the society: Money issuers steal the purchasing power of the people and devalue their money. To put a formal Quranic stamp to this reasoning, we can take verse 3:75, “There are some among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who, if entrusted with a stack of gold, will readily return it.” The modern Islamic bank, if entrusted with money equivalent to a stack of gold, returns you only 90% of its worth in purchasing power, owing to inflationary erosion, thus it’s part of a system that clearly violates the Maqasid. Islamic banks have thus thoroughly failed to espouse the core principle of risk sharing and eliminating interest (since interest exists in the very issuance process of the money they are built on). The only real Islamic alternative ever proposed was the Gold Dinar Movement. Starting in parallel (and in many respects earlier) than Islamic banking, (with the first modern Dinar minted in 1992), it was incisively accurate in its assessment and proposed remedy to the money problem: “The Return to the Gold Dinar.” This was an earlier time, when the golden tool in the fight against fiat was literally gold, which was then popularized by Austrian economics, advocated by upright leaders like Ron Paul, and adopted by grassroots activists like Bernard von NotHaus. The Muslim world saw its own spate of activism for sound money, led by its most vocal proponent, Umar Vadillo, and associated initiatives like Wakala Nusantara, Dinar First and my own Dinar Wakala. The Kelantan State government’s launch of Gold Dinar was our own El Zonte moment, full of euphoria and promise that made waves globally. The passion and courage of this vibrant lot of Warrior Sufis represented the best of modern-day Muslims: Profoundly knowledgeable people, engaged in grassroots activism, to fix the most pressing challenges of the contemporary world. However, the primary strength of gold, its physical indestructibility, came in the way of its adoption: Logistic and regulatory hindrances prevented free flow of physical gold coins across national boundaries. In the words of its founder, Shaykh Abdalqadir, “The defense mechanisms of today’s late capitalism and its crisis management surrounding the buying, moving and minting of gold have surrounded it with prohibitive pricing and taxation.” It continues to serve as a galvanizing symbol of the fight against Riba, but making it a practical inflationary hedge, or a broader Ummah-level movement for sound money, proved an elusive goal. Without the Gold Dinar, the horizon seemed all but bleak, except that a glimmer of hope came from the most unexpected of places: Where scholars, economists and revolutionaries had failed, nerds succeeded! Enter Emir Satoshi! ADVENT OF BITCOIN For us in the Gold Dinar Movement, Bitcoiners are our brothers in arms: fighting the same enemy, securing the same goal. This is what I have always advocated to my fellow activists in the dinar movement, from as far back as 2012. Our Prophetﷺ, as well as the Rashidun Caliphs, never debased money, nor profited from seigniorage, but gave us the right to choose our own mediums of exchange. This is fundamentally antithetical to the monstrosity of legal tender laws, which Islamic scholars have been duped into legitimizing under various pretexts (highlighting the need for increased financial literacy in this lot). This freedom to choose a currency constitutes the common ground that both us and the Bitcoiners can rally around together. “The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust,” writes Satoshi. He recognized the problem with fiat and set out to fix it with Bitcoin, a miraculous epiphany that has let loose this growing, global band of fervid, somewhat bumptious Maximalists, as similar in essence and ethos to us, as they look different in appearance. I see Bitcoiners, not only in their pluck and guile, but also in the sly ingenuity of their weapon of choice, as nothing less than a modern-day David taking on the Goliath of traditional banking! From a Muslim perspective, the operating verse of the Quran in critique of the Bitcoin movement becomes 49:13, “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aware.” In the realm of monetary matters, the most righteous and noble are those who support sound money. It is appropriate that Allah stresses his own divine attributes in the verse, as a warning that our religiously colored conception of righteousness may not necessarily be the same as that of the knowing, the aware. (The literal term Taqwa, means something that protects you from the wrath of God.) And to the best of my belief, protecting and uplifting the poor, the downtrodden from the entrapments of a prejudiced financial system is surely a winner with the God of Abraham! A SECOND CHANCE We Muslims had set out to establish a just and fair society, and for some time, to quote David Graeber, succeeded: “Once freed from its ancient scourges of debt and slavery, the local bazaar had become, for most, not a place of moral danger, but the very opposite: the highest expression of the human freedom and communal solidarity, and thus to be protected assiduously from state intrusion.” But gradually, as our political and intellectual leadership in the world waned, we now find ourselves economically bankrupt, submerged in a rigged financial system, and enslaved to the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). A major reason for this impoverishment was the widening gap of modern knowledge. The following vicious cycle of three circularly dependent factors is another way of modeling our current reality: Low capital allocation for education. A generally weak economy leaves little allocation for investment in education of both scientific and humanities disciplines, which is required for a productive human capital. Low human capital. The first factor results in low quality of education in the populace then manifests politically in bad national decisions, engagement in conflicts, economic mismanagement, acquisition of debt and failure to curb corruption. Economically, this unskilled workforce has low productivity, scarce entrepreneurship and ineffective technology adoption. Religiously, it permits violence and extremism to breed along sectarian fault lines. Low economic output. The second factor results in continued economic tribulations, since the whole society is now in KTLO mode, instead of “adding new features.” Which leads us again to item one. It is the standard cycle of poverty played out at a macro scale, which many competing power bases believe they can break. The military, the Mullahs, and the Liberals, far away, even the CIA has prescriptions on how to solve our problems. But such temporary political and economic interventions bear no lasting results, since nations are built by worthy men and women, over a span of many years, who, given a free and peaceful environment, fall back on their innate drive for excellence to create a better world. It is the job of the revolutionary and his meteoric jolt, or at a smaller scale, your social entrepreneur giving a small push, that breaks a segment of society free from this vicious cycle: A closed ecosystem of wealth circulation, comprising of learned individuals, equipped with better technology and empowered with more capital, shielded from outside influence, and stabilized by a fair social contract, to launch the virtuous symbiosis of economic prosperity and human development which prop each other to newer heights. This break can start in many ways: a national independence, some strong leadership, or in case of Islam, the founding of a new religion. Islam’s own trajectory gives us a generalized three-stage pattern on which any revolution can be modeled, an excellent blueprint for our bitcoin adoption. Education: A new world view is conceived, and people are educated toward it for voluntarily placing their faith on it — Iman. Separation: The model is physically deployed, separated from existing systems, so it can grow and thrive without any negative external influences — Hijra. Protection: When the model grows strong enough to threaten the status quo, but still weak enough to be fully destructible, it needs protection, usually requiring armed conflict — Jihad. We in the Gold Dinar Movement believed that the break in this vicious cycle will come from financial empowerment: When Muslim people and governments adopt sound money, free from the shackles of the IMF, it will allow our bankrupt economies to manage enough disposable income that can be invested in other avenues in society, putting us on a path to progress and human development. Gold would bring back the Golden Age, producing men and women who are worth their weight in gold! But it could not. Let me explain why, and how bitcoin makes it possible. BITCOIN: A TOOL FOR REVOLUTION Following our three-stage model of a revolution, let’s review how bitcoin resolves the challenges of each step. 1. Education The common man, humble about his knowledge of finance, expects, like John Galbraith remarked, a “deeper mystery to the process of money creation.” But which really is so simple, he goes on, that “the mind is repelled.” But the chasm in traditional and modern education keeps our scholars from being able to religiously evaluate the fiat system, for which they need three vital credentials: a traditional Mufti qualification, specialized research in the Fiqh of Muamalat, and a study of modern economics. Only a handful achieve this, like the globally revered Usmani, who become thought leaders in Islamic finance: The rest take the easy way out and follow what they posit. I once asked a certified Shariah advisor on LinkedIn, if he knew what fractional reserve banking meant. I expected some abstruse, rule-bending justification for it but was taken aback by his honest admission that he simply didn’t know what it was! So the first challenge was to educate both the people and the scholars about the fiat system. Then to enlist serious academic and industry practitioners to devise a working alternative based on gold and silver. Then to have its demand trickle down into the masses to eventually morph into enough political pressure for the government to adopt it, much to its own detriment. Highly unlikely. Except that with bitcoin, educating the people now becomes much more focused and result oriented. The wider goal of educating people about finance and economics remains indispensable in both gold and Bitcoin-based sound money solutions. But with bitcoin, we don’t have to wait for a third-world academia and archaic-minded scholars to sell the solution to an unwilling government: We take the narrative, and the prerogative of action, back from them. We go tactical, orange pill the masses with an Urdu translation of the bitcoin standard, and focus on what is minimally essential to achieve within our means: Teaching Muggles... sorry…. No-coiners, the very basics of money mechanics, the role of bitcoin in our strategic response, and the know-how to stack satoshis in a cold wallet! The rest will follow! Coming to think of it, my initial printing press analogy is poignantly relevant. The press encapsulated years of knowledge in a simple package easily disseminated to thousands, which could have overcome our knowledge gap had we adopted it earlier. Bitcoin, too, encapsulates the quintessential wisdom of centuries of humanity’s experience in what constitutes good money and allows it to be spread easily across the world. It is both knowledge, and a tool crafted out of that knowledge. If we miss the boat on it, we will not only lose to “usury capitalism,” but the Bitcoin movement, too, will be deprived of huge potential support from a quarter of the world population. We must join the rest of humanity in a last ditch attempt at wealth equality. 2. Separation After educating people about money mechanics and bitcoin, the second step is the Hejira, our separation from the existing system. An Islamic scholar, Abdassamad Clarke defined “usury capital,” as “the use of capital that is both generated by usury and operated according to usurious principles, which permits a tiny clique of individuals, by the principle of fiat money amplified by leverage, to wield extraordinary power and accumulate unheard of wealth in such a manner as to subject the rest of humanity as menial servants in their project of self-enrichment, whether in the tyrannies of the East or the so-called free-market capitalism of the West.” The fundamental philosophical difference between Islamic and Western economics is how we view interest. Islam holds firm to the classical Judeo-Christian prohibition, believing that the time value of money is more fairly accounted for in equity finance style risk sharing of the invested capital, instead of a guaranteed return favoring the capitalist. Among other things, its side effect is prohibiting both the monetizing of our “future income” to issue fiat, and prohibiting the money-multiplier effect of fractional reserve, through the rulings of Riba, Bai-al-Dain and Bai-al-Madum. Bitcoiners and libertarians rely on an entirely different philosophical foundation to reach partially the same conclusion in regards to fiat, that it’s perverse, unjust and socially destructive. The end goal for both is the same: To separate ourselves from the fiat system and carve out an entirely new, independent financial system: The original idea of decentralized finance (DeFi)! Unfortunately, the bubble effect we so dislike in TradFi — traditional finance — is now itself widespread in the non-Bitcoin crypto world, what Ellen Farrington cites as the immense amount of “rehypothecation, leverage, and securitization,” which if misused can cause systemic risks that affect everyone. The practical reality of contemporary DeFi in the non-Bitcoin world is quite far from its theoretical goal. Looking at this aspect of “crypto,” some Islamic scholars took the liberty of invoking the gambling prohibition clause, something whose motivation we can sympathize with, even though we disagree with the conclusion. A lack of regulation at the administrative level cannot be countered by religious pronunciation of Haram status. It’s kind of like declaring cars as Islamically forbidden, merely because some people are driving them too fast and killing others. But presently, we are far less interested in how scholars view “crypto” than we are regarding bitcoin. The DeFi world’s shiny new investments offering unsustainable returns, its shady ICOs and the casino-like frenzy and get-rich-quick dreams of novice retail investors are far removed from what we advocate, from what we are daring to call a second chance for the Muslim world: A Bitcoin-based sound money adoption as a medium of exchange and store of value! But what is nevertheless commendable in the crypto world (led, of course, by Bitcoin) is the attempt to create this entirely new, independent miniverse of alternative, decentralized finance, isolated from the existing system. Building and expanding this decentralization, based on Bitcoin, is the essence of the second step of our revolutionary blueprint: the Hejira. Migrating from the old to the new. As Iqbal would have said, “Blow away this transitory world, and build a new one from its ashes” — khakastar se aap apna jahan paida karay. The only serious prior attempt for sound money among Muslims was the Dinar movement. But it only works in a physical jurisdiction: Where to mint, where to store, how to transport, how to coordinate electronic payments, how to deal with banking regulations, taxes and government interference? Theoretically, it was possible to instantiate an entirely independent ecosystem of issuance, storage, transport and trade using gold, but real progress on it was very slow. At the same time, the Bitcoin ecosystem has matured so much to be classifiable as an independent and isolated system, free from all interference from legacy finance. The Core Bitcoin Timechain, Lightning and Layer 2 smart contract solutions, and the globally distributed miner, node operator and supporter community, all combine to form a platform on which we can build and experiment with truly Islamic financial contracts of the form that are not possible with TradFi. In this ecosystem, we can resuscitate Islamic social and financial institutions like the Bait-ul-Maal, the Suq, the Waqf, the Guilds, the Hawala, the Wahdiya, the Qirad and the Musharaka, free from the restrictions of any government, securities commission or central bank. 3. Protection And once this isolated system is deployed, we need to protect it. A story is told in Islamic lore, that when Abu Dharr Ghifari came looking to meet the Prophet, Ali told him to walk a few paces behind him, and if he senses anyone suspicious he will stoop down to tie his shoelaces and Abu Dharr should continue walking ahead. Kind of like a coinjoin to obfuscate where he was actually going. When you are small, you must remain in stealth mode and operate under the radar. Later on, when the small state of early Islam was established in a nearby city, it needed a number of armed conflicts to defend itself from being nipped in the bud! Deploying a sound money system, too, may need a precarious window in which the sapling would need fierce protection before it grows into a tree. The hellacious powers issuing the yuans and dollars of the world are way too formidable for any third-world nation state to get away with a head-on collision. In fact, we cannot even withstand assaults from individual speculators, let alone a concerted effort by the global financial cabal to preserve its status quo. El Salvador and the like are definitely interesting trailblazers to watch out for here, but it is too early to tell. If a sufficient number of first-world citizens band together to defy their government in adoption of sound money, the response of fiat-powered regimes would (probably) be much more restrained in handling them versus some rogue state from a third-world country attempting to defy the dominant currency. I was told by a prominent Islamic banker that when Mahatir toyed with the idea, he was sent a very stern signal to “cease and desist” by the powers that be! So, can a Muslim government adopt and get away with either the dinar or bitcoin? I believe only in the latter. Only bitcoin has the necessary technological edge in terms of its unstoppability and indestructibility that can substitute for the need of a national military power strong enough to protect a traditional sound money built on gold. THE ISLAMIC STATE VERSUS BITCOIN But many Islamic revivalists believe otherwise and their goal is usually larger in scope than financial reform alone. It is a more holistic quest to resuscitate the political, social and legal structures of precolonial Islamic governments. Encouraged by the spectacular rise of early Islam that dared challenge superior powers like Byzantine and Sassanids, they believe it possible to recreate the traditional theocracy along similar lines, one of whose side effects would be to eradicate fiat currency also. Such ambitious projects downplay the urgency of fixing our financial system: No need to separately struggle for it if it comes as a natural corollary to the larger political renaissance. Now the specter of such pan-Islamic revival has been thoroughly demonized in Western imagination, owing from our own side to violent extremism, owing from their side to a deep-rooted Islamophobia, and owing generally to ideas (or realities?) like the clash of civilizations. But my Bitcoiner friends — whose libertarian ethos is so refined to even self-censure the slightist hint of authoritarian enforcement in El Salvador’s legal tender adoption of bitcoin — will surely agree that it is entirely within the rights of the Muslim world to voluntarily experiment, on their land, with whatever form of government they fancy: caliphates, sultanates or kingdoms! But the reality of this dream in the minds of the majority of modern Muslims is quite different from what the world perceives. The moderate Muslim just wants Islamic principles to be the guiding source of their political and social order. But the strength of this desire is often encashed by opportunists, resulting in two recent distorted models of political Islam: 1.The Iranian model: Somewhat broad-based and sustainable but toothless and symbolic. They are the political twins of Islamic banks, offering no real change to the common man, except moral policing. Financially, there even exists the oxymoronic Central Bank of the Islamic Republic. Why would you have an Islamic bank if you were truly an Islamic republic? 2. Second, is the Taliban and ISIS model: Narrow-based, extremist and unsustainable, divorced from the comity of nations. ISIS did reportedly issue the Gold Dinar but to no one’s avail, except perhaps as a recruitment propaganda. News out of Kabul promises a more restrained and balanced government this time around, but is it a genuine change of heart or just political expediency? So, while the Muslim world waits for a true Islamic reformation, and the world holds its breath on how the next such attempt turns out, my issue with this ubiquitous political quest in the Muslim imagination is just NGMI — it’s not gonna make it! We can’t stall the effort of immediate financial reform on some future promise of a bigger change happening to facilitate it. As an Urdu saying goes, na nau munn tayl hoe ga, na Radha naachay gi: Neither shall the king be able to provision nine gallons of lamp oil, and nor will the stage ever be lit enough for his dancing girl, Radha, to perform! Nevertheless, assuming for a moment that a mature, viable, modern Islamic government does get established by some geopolitical miracle, faithful to Islam’s core tenets, and broad-based in popular support, the next and more pertinent question becomes: Will it have sufficient political, and if necessary, military power, to deploy a gold-based sound monetary system in their country, and then get away with the sanctions and isolation that follow? And this is where bitcoin, once again, outshines other alternatives. The one trait that sets it apart from all “crypto”, and indeed, all monies in human history: true, sovereign-grade censorship resistance, from both your own government and foreign powers. Without needing any battalions or bombs, bitcoin enables us to fight the good fight ourselves and win. And if the broader Islamic reformation materializes, bitcoin can support it, too, for bypassing potential sanctions and increasing national wealth! God has a knack for defeating evil by the simplest of designs — the mighty Goliath with a slingshot, the persecutors of the Prophet with a humble spider — as if to compound the humiliation of defeat by the plainness of its bearer. Who could have thought that the Kremlins, Zhongnanhais and White Houses of the world would be made helpless by the confluence of two elementary ideas: proof of work and difficulty adjustment! But this simple, easily overlooked and less understood killer combination of traits makes bitcoin an undefeatable tool in the hands of us, the 99%. We do not need to wait for anyone. We can do it ourselves with bitcoin. THE WAY FORWARD While the wallet addresses, exchange accounts, market cap, and of course, the hype around crypto is constantly rising in Muslim countries, much of this activity is from the perspective of a shiny new investment vehicle, a get-rich-quick bandwagon to which everyone wants to hitch! This has engendered the animated debate of investor protection, scam avoidance and the whole academic deliberation of whether they are at all Halal owing to a perceived lack of intrinsic value and being free from government control. While all of these objections on bitcoin from the Shariah perspective have been thoroughly refuted by various scholars and are easily searchable on the internet, the continuance of this superfluous debate is dangerously distracting: In the process, we are losing sight of the higher frequencies of this amazing once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. Aye ahle-e-nazar zauq-e-nazar khoob hai laikinJoe shay ki haqeeqat koe na dekhay woe nazar kiya We need bitcoin, not because it’s a great investment (which incidentally it is), but because it’s a great store of value and a medium of exchange: A free medium of exchange, which can uplift us collectively if we just adopt it, en masse, as our money. To my fellow Muslims, here is a parting thought. We love and honor our Prophet to such an extent that even the minutest of his actions, Sunnahs, is recorded, revered and repeated, even if it be as simple as the table manners of cutting some fruit. But here is another Sunnah of bigger import: success. The change that he set out to achieve in the world, he did achieve it. As he breathed his last in the arms of Ayesha, he had already delivered on the promise he had made to his companions in the lowest ebb of their persecution: “... a traveler from Sana to Hadrarmaut will fear none but Allah.” Although bordering a little on logical fallacy, I would point out that he didn’t cite something more symbolic like the establishment of the Caliphate, or the conquests, or the subsequent power. He chose to cite, as evidence of success to what they were suffering for, the establishment of a certain social order: One in which an anonymous citizen would not fear physical or financial insecurity. I say anonymous, not a private citizen, because the choice of the word “traveler” is very telling. While you are known in your city, protected by your identity, and potential clout from a corporation or clan, it is suddenly removed when you are in a strange land. They do not even know your name, unless you tell them: You are just a wallet address. But this traveler is not afraid of loss of wealth, or being robbed, or not having the right passport, or the right vaccine passport! He can move himself, and he can move his money. We Dinarists and Bitcoiners always equate inflation with theft. Whether you snatch 50 rupees from a poor man, or the free fall of your currency leaves him with 50 rupees less of a purchasing power, it is the same. While every ill is not caused by our monetary system, there is the obvious administrative incompetence and a dismal economic performance to account for — but inflation is definitely a huge factor. And all our high talk, slogans, research papers, reform movements, activism and militarism have deviated from this one Sunnah: The success of delivering safety to this traveler again. Bitcoin can help us succeed. Like now! Not 20 years later. Not when some promised leader will part the seas for us again. But now, when the poor illiterate, helpless man on the street looks at us educated and privileged elites and asks: What did you do to level the playing field for me? The Islamic banker may say, “Oh, I developed this intricate Shariah compliant profit and loss sharing contract for you, approved by the council of scholars, and backed by the gold dinar, just wait for it to be deployed.” I will say, “Dude, here, let me help you buy a few satoshis and get you a Lightning wallet so you don’t have to revert back to the rupee when paying for your next meal!” I think you should do the same. Bitcoin deserves a fresh look from us Muslims. Let’s think about it. Let’s use it correctly. Let’s spread it. Let’s understand it. Let’s use Bitcoin. Tyler Durden Sat, 10/30/2021 - 19:30.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeOct 30th, 2021