One further thought, you can't impose punitive taxes aimed at reducing consumption on Covid like you can on alcohol, cigarettes, or sugary foodstuffs.
Ok you make a good case for overstep.
Agree. I got vaccinated and was fairly vocal on my thoughts regarding the same. When the vaccine became more therapeutic I declined to continue to get the boosters. Ive contracted the the virus twice and both time were very mild. I also have no pre-existing conditions which place me at higher risk.
Don't pretend that in a time of non urgency it is equal to say you can't work because you are obese or smoke tobacco. First of all, you can't catch those two health problems. And second of all Covid was causing major parts of our economy to shut down because of people dying or becoming ill. Someone in the federal government only having to take a week off of work, as opposed to having to go into our overly stressed hospitals for 3 or 4 weeks, took stress off the hospitals, and got them back to work quicker. Two very important factors in favor of the mandate, considering worker shortages were prevalent everywhere. That should have been good enough. In my grandparent's time, the majority of people out there wouldn't have questioned the mandate, and would have volunteered to take it, even if there hadn't been a mandate. And most people who would have been helped by exercise, would have been helped by it six months or a year later. That was not an immediate solution.
At the time the Biden Admin attempted to enforce the private employee mandate the vaccine didn’t prevent the transmission of the virus. Which was the stated rationale for said mandate. Therefore, I’m not following your argument
They were a little slow to get the mandate in place, and they were a little slow to rewrite the mandate. (which is what should have happened) That didn't make it less valid. You are more concerned with the rights of a few, than the welfare of the whole. That is not how it is supposed to work in times of emergency. The workers as a unit, would have been at work more of the time, and the workers as a whole would have suffered less in their healthiness with the mandate. And more work would have been accomplished for the people. In a time of emergency that is more important than 50 or a 100 workers being out of work because they refused to obey the mandate. Their irrational fears of vaccine's caused this to become a much bigger deal than it should have.
Two days before, Trump wanted to call up the guard. He was turned down by the DC Police and Pelosi.
My argument all along wasn’t the writing of the mandate. My opposition is the attempt enforce a mandate to keep their jobs on the American people based on the state objective of stopping the spread of Covid which at the time of the attempted enforcement did nothing to stop the spread of Covid. Reasonable people would have seen the vaccine was no longer effective and backed off enforcement. The Biden Admin chose politics over science in the enforcement aspect. That is my objection.
You just just stepped around addressing what should have been obvious reasons for keeping the mandate, and you want to talk about the administration being political about it.
Question….why would the federal government seek to enforce a mandate on its people they know doesn’t accomplish its stated objective ? Politics or incompetency is all I got .
|
|
|
That is partly mitigating for Trump. It does not excuse his silence during the riot or his attempt to use Pence to execute a coup.I don’t post on Crossfire and rarely read, but have recently and the ignorance of some posters is astonishing, but not surprising, based on similar comments about Tulsa athletics. After spending a few days reading Crossfire, I’m going back to just reading and commenting on posts/posters in the Alley
Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored
September 20, 2024
WASHINGTON - Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) revealed that days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful - including using the National Guard - which the Pentagon leaders ignored. This revelation directly contradicts the conclusions drawn in the flawed DoD IG reporton January 6, 2021.
In response to these revelations, Chairman Loudermilk released the following statement:
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these Senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance AND misled Congressional Leaders to believe they were doing their job, when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted, but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth."
Click here or the image below to see the key excerpts from these transcripts.
Click here to read the transcripts in full.
See below for a full breakdown of the Pentagon leaders' choices to ignore President Trump's directives.
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump:
Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.' [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, 'Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.'”
On January 5, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, placed unprecedented restrictions on DCNG Commander Major General William Walker to prevent any movement to the Capitol without Secretary McCarthy’s explicit permission on January 6 and 7.
On January 6, 2021, the outer perimeter on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol was breached by rioters at 12:53pm. The DCNG arrived five hours later. Click here to view the timeline.
These transcripts prove President Trump’s senior Pentagon leaders were focused on OPTICS, instead of doing their job, as the Capitol was breached:
Miller: “There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”
Director of the Army Staff, Lieutenant General Walter Piatt: “Was optics a concern for us as we prepared to use soldiers downtown in Washington D.C? Absolutely.”
As “optics” concerns were being discussed and Secretary McCarthy claims he was ‘developing a plan’, the DCNG was ready to move, less than 2 miles from the Capitol – awaiting Secretary McCarthy’s authorization.
Walker’s General Counsel, Colonel Earl Matthews: “We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD, they need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. They’re not allowed to move.”
DCNG Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks: “They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
At 3:04pm, Miller provided verbal approval to Secretary McCarthy for immediate deployment of the DCNG. What was Secretary McCarthy doing between receiving this approval, and 5:08pm, when the order eventually reaches the D.C. National Guard? Why didn’t he communicate this approval for a full two hours?
At 3:18pm, Secretary McCarthy told Congressional Democrat Leadership that the DC National Guard had the “green light” and “is moving”. Two hours would pass before Secretary McCarthy’s deployment order would ACTUALLY be communicated to the DCNG.
In these vital hours, the DCNG had been trying but was unable to reach Secretary McCarthy.
DCNG Adjutant General Aaron Dean: “[Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm. He said, ‘I haven’t heard from him all day.’ When he tried to call his cell phone, it went straight to voicemail.”
The President was concerned with optics too. He didn't want to be the one immediately asking them to stop what they were doing,
It’s not even mitigating for him. The commander in chief makes a call and troops move. Trying to pin blame on his subordinates isn’t sufficient. He could have given any order on the day to take action. He purposefully waited plain and simple.
Miller and milley both testified he never sent an order and never requested guard troops. It amazes me the lengths people go to defend Trump on that day because they are members of the cult.
Wanting all recess appointments is a big warning flag too. More circumventing of the rules. At least the intent of the rules.
He's picking all the conspiracy theorists and loons in DC. Rubio and Wiles are the sane ones, if that says anything. I'm waiting to see if he has a spot for MTG.
"The sense of mounting chaos was exacerbated by a Wall Street Journal story that the Trump transition team is considering an executive order that would create a “warrior board,” which would have the power to recommend the removal of three- and four-star officers. The story fueled new fears that Trump — who threatened to fire generals wholesale during the campaign — will purge top brass and politicize the military, after mulling on the trail that he could turn its might on his political enemies when in office."
Who cares.Harris trying to raise money for recounts ?
Harris fundraising page says a portion of donations will be directed to recount effort
A portion of donations made to the Harris Victory Fund will be directed towards a recount effort, according to its fundraising page.www.usatoday.com
I'd like to see that article too.
Didn’t see it but that’s an awful and very dangerous precedent.
Was posted late last night above. Here it is, reposted.
"The sense of mounting chaos was exacerbated by a Wall Street Journal story that the Trump transition team is considering an executive order that would create a “warrior board,” which would have the power to recommend the removal of three- and four-star officers. The story fueled new fears that Trump — who threatened to fire generals wholesale during the campaign — will purge top brass and politicize the military, after mulling on the trail that he could turn its might on his political enemies when in office."
You do realize Obama fired 197 officers during a five year period? Please read the first paragraph.
Yes Obama set the precedent, which is not good. Now Trump is pondering whether to take full advantage of it, which is also not good. They should have both kept their hands off of the military.You do realize Obama fired 197 officers during a five year period? Please read the first paragraph.
Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years
Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.
- 07:01 PM ET 10/29/2013
Why Investors Should Expect More Volatility In 2019
We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.
Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.
IBD Newsletters
Get exclusive IBD analysis and actionable news daily.
SIGN UP NOW!
Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.
Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.
From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."
Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.
"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."
Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis."
For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be "his" military and used only for "his" purposes.
I disagree. If replacing military officers to improve our military strength and readiness and get rid of programs such as DEI training, then it should be done, no matter who does it or which party. We cannot continue to have a weakened military. This has been shown in the recent years with the wars we’ve been involved with.
I simply don’t like the precedent which opens the door for a power hungry leader to fill the military with a bunch of loyalist “yes men”.
I don’t either. But the military is like a business or institution in that if leadership strays from the organizations objectives changes must be made. CEO's are fired, College Presidents and AD, as well as Head Coaches. A lot of people want Wilson gone because he’s not doing a good enough job. What if a general or colonel strays from the nations military objective. Shouldn’t they be fired or demoted?
The problem is our officials are not non partisan enough to put several military and non military minds in a room, to figure out what is valid and not valid, that is going on in and towards the military. And that isn't something we can get away from for the time being. The officials have to be able to be self aware of their own prejudices, enough to analyze them properly, and to throw out things they might have held in their minds for a long time. And I am not just talking about non liberal ideas that need to be thrown out. There is liberal thinking that is not appropriate in the military as well as non liberal thinking. Nuanced thought is paramount.
