Montana Judge legalizes Human Sacrifice

I will admit that the title of this post is the result of extrapolation.  The judge did not issue a direct ruling about human sacrifice but what he did do paves the way to it.  Allow me to explain.

What this Judge did do was rule that Vaccine mandates superseded individual rights.  Before I discuss how this paves the way to human sacrifice let’s first discuss the enormous logical and scientific mistakes made by this Judge in his ruling.

“The public interest in protecting the general populace against vaccine-preventable diseases in health care settings using safe, effective vaccines is not outweighed by the hardships experienced to accomplish that interest,”


Repeating a lie does not make it true even if you are a judge.  Stating that there is a public health benefit from a vaccine is a lie.  Vaccines, when they work, only protect the individual that take it; they do not protect the public.  I do not prevent anyone else from becoming sick by being vaccinated.  I only prevent myself from becoming sick.

But can’t I spread the virus to someone else?  Yes I can, but only to someone else who has also chosen not to be vaccinated.  I do not endanger the public; I do represent a risk to other individuals who have also chosen not to be vaccinated.  So I have not forced anyone to incur any risk, they have chosen to take that risk on themselves.  I have changed nothing by choosing not to be vaccinated.

Wait a minute, isn’t there a public health benefit from protecting public hospitals?  This is of course what the government has conditioned us to believe but this is absurd on its face.  Public hospitals are meant to protect the public.  The public is not meant to protect hospitals and even if we chose to, what are we really protecting?  The capacity of public hospitals is determined by politicians and bureaucrats.  Hospital capacity is budget decision not a public health measure.  When we discourage use of public hospitals what we are really protecting is the government’s budget.  We are not preserving the hospital we are preserving some politician’s ability to spend that money elsewhere.

Every dollar saved by “protecting” public hospitals is a dollar spent on some politician’s pet project.  These pet projects generally fall in to 2 categories; contracts for unnecessary or imaginary services and foreign aid.  Politicians love these because the money is always funneled through their friends and no one really keeps track of where it goes.  Every time we save a hospital another politician becomes a millionaire.

Vaccines do have the ability to prevent societal disruption but is that enough to say that they must be mandatory?  Even if you believe that, this ruling is nonsensical because it dealt with COVID vaccine mandates and the COVID Jabs are not vaccines.  Not only do they not stop transmission, the only possible public health argument, they increase your chance of becoming sick.  What this judge ruled essentially means that the government can mandate any medical treatment regardless of the benefit.  Right now you really should be concerned the judge does not know someone who needs your kidney; or your heart.

The Judges ruling is completely bereft of logic but that is not the worst part.  His ruling turns back the clock hundreds of years to when ordinary people had not rights.  Any right that can be superseded by public safety is not a right.  If it can be taken by government it is a privilege not a right.  What the judge really ruled is that there should be no limit on government power.  The government can do whatever they want in the name of public safety and that is where we arrive at human sacrifice.

Who decides what is and is not a matter of public safety?  This judge thinks that the COVID jabs are a matter of public safety even though they demonstrably do not work.  So it is not safety that is important but the perception of safety.   Anything the government perceives to be in the interest of public safety now trumps everything; no proof required.  So what if the government decides public safety is imperiled by overpopulation?  The government could pick and choose who would be euthanized to protect public safety.  How is this any different than ancient societies that sacrificed people to appease gods?


1 reply
  1. Trevor Boyce
    Trevor Boyce says:

    If this can happen in a state like Montana that has a history of freedom like Texas, then imagine what is coming to a leftist state like CA or NY.

Comments are closed.