Solving “problems that don’t exist”
By A. Dru Kristenev —-April 27, 2021
That’s what the governor of Kansas had to say about election reform. Citing that there’s no evidence of fraud (that she acknowledges, not that it hasn’t occurred) she vetoed a bill that she said corrected a nonexistent problem. It comes down to believing what you want to believe and, essentially, copying the three monkeys – see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The evil being anything that doesn’t jive with what one wants to see, hear or speak.
In the vernacular for the information age, we’ve dubbed it “ignore-ance.” And this ignoring of facts, expecting them to take a hike and leave the distracted and gullible in perceived peace, is being applied to all issues of controversy, impropriety and discomfort.
In the case of Kansas being completely free of election irregularities or illegalities, the impossibility of its occurrence is, at best, slim. For instance, it’s frankly a wonder that such a conservative state voted in a democrat governor. Perhaps Laura Kelly has certain knowledge that she wouldn’t be in office if it were not for voter fraud. That would be a viable reason for vetoing election reform by simply denying its presence.
Instances of self-identified populations depending on ignore-ance to find their happy place abounds. Of the more obvious groups are those that have given over their lives to fear. Not exactly a halcyon safe space because their “peace” is driven by fear-filled reliance on unproven protection that fallible “scientists” have foisted on the media-plagued public. The reference is to a nearly neurotic fear of the maskless and non-vaccinated.
Disagree with a store policy to wear a mask (or inform the vendor that wearing one is detrimental to one’s health) may result in a belligerent dressing down, implying, if not outrightly accusing the maskless, of the ignore-ance of which the accuser suffers. Often, they belittle an individual who declines to wear a mask for health reasons, thinking they can usurp medical authority and insist that the patron don one.
It’s no different for businesses, such as Delta Airlines, that believes they have a right to insist individuals undergo an invasive medical procedure in order to fly their not-so-friendly skies. (All right, that’s a different airline. It’s still fitting.) Thinking it’s their right to coerce inoculation of an experimental vaccine for the privilege of sitting packed into a plane’s fuselage still having to wear suffocating masks for hours on end, makes the decision to forego flying their airline that much easier.
Since arriving in the southern tail of Florida amid what I recall, when last I visited, was a vibrant community of people who consider themselves independent thinkers, the Keys look very different.
On a slender stretch of land flooded with fresh sea air, too many residents can be seen walking outdoors in masks. Frightened by an open smile, some businesses still pressure clients to wear a mask or be shown the door of their establishment. This attitude coming after their governor who, having examined studies and statistics that demonstrated how detrimental was the lockdown and continued fear-mongering by the press and administration, lifted the mandates and stated what a mistake it had been to institute them.
This week, an employee at Family Dollar in Tavernier threatened this patron with forced mask wearing or refusal of service even when it was made clear certain issues required they do not wear a mask. When N-95 masks aren’t designed to block the .1 micron virion but filter out .3 micron and larger sized particles, pressuring patrons to wear paper or cloth masks is senseless.
Businesses’ mask police apparently view themselves equal to medical professionals and can determine whether people have a valid reason for avoiding face masks. There are HIPAA protections and store policy is not law. When there is conflict between government agencies about health guidelines to avoid a virus that has a recovery rate of 98.2%, there’s a problem and the problem is this:
Attempting to force individuals to wear a mask or essentially show proof of rationale for not wearing one is, by its nature, revealing private medical history which is illegal to demand. And in spite of some legal opinions, the so-called health reasons for demanding that patrons wear a mask is not on equal standing of “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”
Whereas food service establishments may require body covering for perceived health and aesthetic reasons, forcing an individual with a health issue to restrict their breathing is not the same thing. Why? Because putting on a shirt or shoes rarely inhibits a person’s good health, though some odd circumstance may yet be encountered to disprove this statement.
However, individuals with respiratory difficulties, behavioral or psychological challenges are exempt from restrictive measures that impair their health, like wearing a mask, regardless what the CDC, government or individual business may impose. Americans with Disabilities Act may apply and it is not incumbent on store or government employees to inquire the reason for an individual to refuse a mask. Nor is it legal that a patron be required to show validated proof of exemption.
This is where we are now getting into constitutional challenges. Aside from pundits, so-called medical experts and scientists that vocally support applying social pressure to receive experimental vaccines in order to gain entry to businesses and recreational venues, there’s the First Amendment hurdle which they brush aside.
Not only are medical records private and unavailable to every noseyparker who thinks they should decide what’s good for others’ health, but there’s the religious issue as well. Recall that there are religious sects that have a perfect right to refuse medical interference in their health decisions having put faith in God’s healing over modern medicine. This issue has been contended in numerous legal situations where government has tried to bulldoze believers into receiving medical treatment against their will. Some cases are still pending but it is the right of individuals to make such a decision of faith.
And this is where the courts have made a mishmash of things, apparently creating conflicting precedents. Despite the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling where the private business won the right to conduct business according to the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs, there are now rulings that have denied others that same right.
Rulings vary on homosexual individuals pressuring businesses to go against their sincere beliefs and bake a same-sex couple’s wedding cake, officiate at their wedding, or expect a transvestite to wear appropriate clothing at work in a funeral home. The door has been opened for anyone to challenge a business for discrimination. Essentially, courts have ruled both ways but generally favor rights for the customer or employee, that they are the ones suffering discrimination regardless the First Amendment rights of the business owner.
The apparently conflicting rulings also negate the concept of proving a compelling public interest to protect the common good. In none of the previous scenarios was the argument answered satisfactorily or at all.
The door for anyone to cry “discrimination” was left swinging wide, and in the case of an individual who doesn’t wear a mask for any sincere reason is justifiable. If sexual identity or preference can be argued as a basis for discrimination, virtually any reason is valid, including religious belief that a mask denies God’s healing power as biblically stated. On top of which, considering all the scientific studies that have emerged demonstrating the ineffectiveness of masks, the business that discriminates against a non-masked patron cannot base denying service upon any compelling interest of protecting the public’s health because such an argument can’t be proven.
On the other hand, if a business or agency doesn’t agree with an individual’s sincerely held religious belief, they haven’t the right to overrule that person’s faith. And yet, courts have ruled both ways, tossing the Constitution in the trash for all intents and purposes. Consider that the argument has been used in such cases as not obtaining a driver’s license because it countered the religious belief of the vehicle operator.
Incidents of religious dissidence may be indicative of why the improperly titled Equality Act targets the dismantling of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that protects faith decisions. Whether it’s a business upholding their conviction to protect life as in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, or an individual placing faith in God’s healing above an experimental and non-compulsory vaccine, or masks that cannot be compulsory being proven ineffective by mounting evidentiary studies that are ignored, the First Amendment should be gospel.
State legislatures are taking on their proper role in overseeing elections by making certain that there are standard rules to be followed that interference of federal decisions (or lack thereof) have obscured. Many states are also passing legislation addressing sexual identity and public health that are being used to bludgeon expression of free speech, personal and religious freedoms.
Legal standards are becoming nothing but double standards, elevating civil rights above constitutional rights that are the foundational Law of the Land.
Given a choice of “nonexistent” problems, election fraud isn’t among them but the CCP virus is.