An Honest Critique Regarding Vaccine Legislation

Share this page:

An Honest Critique Regarding Vaccine Legislation

July 26th, 2021 | by Gunner Steele

There is a debate raging today amongst conservatives regarding the use of legislation to prevent mandatory vaccines in private workplaces. On one hand, most conservatives despise the thought of mandatory vaccines anywhere, even in private businesses. But on the other hand, true conservatives who stand on principle simply do not believe the government should involve itself or intermeddle with agreements between employers and employees.

I consider myself a part of that second group. I believe in a true FREE MARKET. The marketplace is free to do whatever it wants and make agreements with people so long as those agreements don't violate Constitutional rights or other rights "retained by the people."

If I want to hire you and as a condition for employment, I require that you wear one red shoe, one blue shoe, a red wig, and a potato sack, and then I require that you work from 1:00 am to 6:00 am only on Saturdays, and you willfully consent to that arrangement—no government has a right to intervene with that contract—unless either one of us breaks the contract. Then, and only then, does the government get involved and it is only to ensure enforcement of the agreement between the private parties.

This is true freedom and this is how things should work in a TRUE FREE MARKET.

So what about vaccines? Can an employer FORCE vaccines on its employees as a condition for employment? Well at first glance, if I'm to be consistent with my explanation above, any employer can force its employees to do anything as a condition of their employment as long as the employee CONSENTED to it and willfully agreed to the requirement.

However, there are a couple of unique circumstances presented in the case of mandatory vaccines and willful employment, particularly in our modern day COVID-19 context, that we must consider in order to draw an honest conclusion to this current dilemma. Let's review 4 of them really quick:

1. Hospitals are Simply Not Private Organizations Anymore

For decades now, so called "private" hospitals are anything but private. Huge percentages of hospitals revenue come as direct payments from both the federal and state governments. And when payments don't come directly from the government, much of their revenue comes indirectly from government as well. This is because most hospitals have unholy alliances with legislatures ensuring that legislation in their states unfairly favors big hospitals, while those same hospitals and their lobbyists fund the campaigns of the legislators who give them this favor. It is corruption and it is wickedness.

Yet, this happens in all 50 states. In the end, there is nothing "private" about "private hospitals." They are all funded by taxpayers. Ultimately, people just accept it because of indolence, apathy, and complacency.

Additionally, in our immediate context, the unholy CARES Acts of 2020 gave major hospitals a $100 billion bailoutan unbelievable sum of money that averages out to $108,000 per hospital bed! This means that many hospitals today made more money taking free handouts from Uncle Sam than they have ever made on the "free market."

In short, modern day hospitals are simply arms of the government masquerading as "private" institutions. As far as I'm concerned, the moment any "private" hospital takes one dime worth of government money, they no longer qualify for "private" status and should be subject to public rules. In such case, yes, all public institutions are subject to regulation by their respective legislatures.

And NO, public institutions should NEVER require vaccines or any other so called "medical treatment" as a condition of employment.

2. Bodily Autonomy and Sovereignty Trumps All

Many patriots fail to recognize that the people have more rights above and beyond those which are enumerated in the Constitution. This is what the 9th amendment is all about. And one of the all important rights that is simply not enumerated in the Constitution is our right to be sovereign over our own bodies.

I believe in the time the Constitution was written, this was just a given, and perhaps it was simply too hard to imagine a time when rights over your own body would be disparaged—meaning that they would have seen no reason to include something so obvious. It would be like saying you have a right to breathe. The point is this—the right to be sovereign over our own bodies is not enumerated in the Constitution, but it is most definitely a right that is "retained" by the people and protected by the 9th amendment!

So while an employer may require you to do things WITH your body, how can an employer ever require you to do things TO your body? Sure, my employer can require me to wake up early, go to bed late, lift 50 pounds, and even endanger my life as an underwater welding technician (doing things WITH my body), but does any employer have a right to require me to take drugs, have sex, or get a tattoo (do things TO my body)?

Does any employer have the right to subject me TO medical treatments, medical experiments, or ingestion of drugs? Certainly the case can be made that an employer and an employee can willfully agree to those conditions of employment in advance, but can an employer force such requirements AFTER they've already agreed upon employment terms?

Can McDonald's require that all of its employees take Adderall or Ritalin daily to ensure "maximum customer satisfaction" by having its employees behavior chemically altered?

Can Starbucks require employees, who never agreed to it in the first place, to be a part of a medical experiment to see if drinking morphine-laced cappuccinos daily creates greater efficiency in the workplace?

Likewise, can a privately owned company require its employees to get injected with a "vaccine" or any other shot if that was not a condition of their employment to begin with?

And since a vaccine is the forceful injection of foreign materials into your own body, how can that be legally, practically, or logically separated from forced sexual encounters?

Sure, it sounds wild and outlandish, but seriously, how is it different? If a male gynecologist hires a bunch of medical assistants and then later demands that they all allow him to penetrate them with his fingers in order to ensure they are healthy and clean "down there," or be fired, how is that different than a dentist requiring his dental assistants to get forced vaccines in order to allegedly "ensure a safe environment" for clients?

I know, I know—I'm talking crazy now because forced sexual acts are different from vaccines, right? But is it really? Or is it just that culturally we give a higher measure of impact to sexual violations over other bodily violations? But isn't a forced violation of your body, whether through a needle, a drug, or a sexual act, still a forced violation of your body, no matter what? I challenge you to think it through…

In the end, what greater right should we have other than the right to be sovereign over our own bodies? All other cherished rights actually exist in order to protect our own sovereignty and autonomy over our bodies. Think about it. The 1st and 2nd amendment that we all cherish so much really just exist as a means of protecting and ensuring the right we have to do what we want with our own bodies. And the 9th amendment assures that the right to bodily sovereignty should never be disparaged or denied.

It should not be outlandish for us to consider having our state legislatures reinforce and clarify the right of the people to be sovereign over their own bodies and to prevent employers from forcing bodily violations that were not part of their willful employment contracts.

3. Courts Are Not Trustworthy Anymore

Another reality of our daily life and existence in America is that courts, and the judges who rule over them, are simply not honest or trustworthy anymore. Particularly when there is a government interest involved.

So while a general employer/employee claim of wrongful termination may, from time to time, end with a just ruling, the likelihood of justice taking place when billions of dollars are at stake—along with the necessity and pressure to maintain alignment with a worldwide scam that is being primarily propagated by your own government—essentially ensures that justice will never be served if left in the hands of a local judge.

While a judge can (and nowadays often do) totally disregard existing legislation, it is certainly more difficult to do so when new statutes are written that are clarified and specific in the manner in which they define the rights of the people. Furthermore, the 9th Amendment essentially defers to other sources in order to define those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our legislatures to define, clarify, and elucidate the right "We the people" have over our own bodies.

4. Americans are In Debt Up to Their Eyeballs

Human desperation based on debt causes people to make bad decisions or to sacrifice their own principles in the name of their immediate need.

And so it is with the typical health care worker. They don't have savings. They are living paycheck to paycheck. Inflation is at an all time high. So nurses, doctors, and healthcare workers will likely submit to whatever they are told, even if it crosses their conscience, out of desperation for maintaining their standard of living.

The same goes for anyone who is being threatened with losing their jobs if they do not obey and submit to "mandatory vaccination." Make no mistake about it, our government and cultural institutions created this debt problem and are now fully taking advantage of it.

An indebted population is easier to control than an enslaved one. It is true. Think about it. Enslaved people often revolt as they have nothing to lose. However, indebted people will always submit and obey since they have everything to lose!

All of these things considered, you must ask yourself, what recourse do the people have right now to maintain their lives and their livelihood, without risking losing everything?

Conclusion of the Whole Matter

In short, while I don't want legislatures meddling with employer/employee relationships, I do believe that the current circumstances we are facing are different and unique and do not apply to the general principle in which I still stand upon. By that, I mean to say, that while I don't think the government should intervene with employee/employer relationships, healthcare facilities in particular are not private enterprises anymore and do not quality for protections of private entities.

Additionally, while I don't believe governments should make requirements upon private institutions regarding employment, the government MUST protect people's inherent rights, particularly the RIGHT to be sovereign over one's body.

Also, since there is virtually not a single case I am aware of where COVID-19 vaccination was an agreed upon requirement for employment, any private institution who fires their employees for refusing to allow their bodies to be violated is definitely in breach of contract, and therefore employees can and should seek recourse with the courts (as unreliable as they may be).

Finally, since the RIGHT to be sovereign over our own bodies is so crucial and paramount to our lives and our FREEDOM, and since our courts lack reliability, I do believe our state legislatures and even our Congress should clarify and define this RIGHT ensuring its protection and ensuring that forced bodily violation through alleged medical treatments, drugs, vaccinations, or other forced activities TO our bodies, be forever prohibited.

Did I change your mind about anything? Do you agree or disagree? Do you think I'm a total nutcase and extremist wacko for daring to compare forced vaccination with forced sexual encounters? Let me know your thoughts and ideas in the comments below…
Gunner Steel Signature
1317 Edgewater Dr #5077
Orlando, FL 32804
Freedom Man Links
Contact Us
Stacks Image 69