Congress, Judicial Branch, Exempted From Biden Jab Mandate

P. Gardner Goldsmith | September 14, 2021
Font Size

Over the past year, we have seen numerous examples of political hypocrisy when it comes to government COVID-19 edicts.

From breaches of their own mask mandates and “social distancing” rules, to careless disregard for their own fearmongering and the spirit of their “I care so much” posturing, America has seen people such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) go maskless, contrary to her own public statements and a collectivist San Francisco mandate, at a San Fran salon, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) party with friends at a swanky bistro, and allow his own winery tasting room to remain open while closing others in other counties, Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) pose with a fan sans mask while they had ice cream last summer, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf tell those stuck at home because of his lockdowns to “read a book,” and saw the same Wolf laugh as his pal, state Rep Wendy Ullman, joked about using masks only for “the cameras,” and, among many more, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo (D) hang out at a wine-tasting, sans mask, in breach of the six-foot barrier, despite her OWN edict four days earlier.

So, is anyone surprised that Joe Biden’s unconstitutional “jab mandate” that could threaten 80 million Americans with $14,000 fines does not apply to members of Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, other federal courts, and all the tax-eating employees who work for them?

NewsWeek’s Darragh Roche reports:

Biden's order on federal workers applies to employees of the executive branch. The House of Representatives and the Senate belong to the separate legislative branch, and the courts to the judicial branch of the federal government.

But, surely, in the spirit of solidarity, the collectivists in those branches will require jabs for themselves, their families, and their staff, right?

Don’t hold your breath.

The situation arises, of course, because the vaunted “separation of powers” – something that most politicians don’t acknowledge, and haven’t for over 100 years when it has been convenient for them to pretend blindness.

But this is curious, since the aggressive, coercive actions Biden claims he can initiate against us also breach the Constitution. So, why are the royal overlords in DC suddenly concerned with the Constitution?

Generations of them have used it like toilet paper for centuries.

Decade after decade, year after year, day after day, hour after hour, the politicians in DC have shown absolute and utter contempt for their oaths to the Constitution.

I didn’t swear an oath to it, and neither did you.

I never signed some magical “social contract”, and I don’t tacitly agree to what they tell me just because I don’t flee from their aggression.

The plan says: ‘Building on the President's announcement in July to strengthen safety requirements for unvaccinated federal workers, the President has signed an Executive Order to take those actions a step further and require all federal executive branch workers to be vaccinated.’

Which brings to mind a curious fact.

The glorious and also-unconstitutional FDA recently gave a Pfizer offshoot version of its mRNA jab the “full approval,” despite not all the usual tests being done by the corporation. That version is called Comirnaty. But, though the mRNA “secret gene sauce” is the same, only Comirnaty is approved outside the “emergency use” channel allowed for the Pfizer-labelled version.

And there aren’t a lot of Comirnaty jabs ready.

But under the FDA rules, only drugs that are fully approved can be mandated. In fact, according to the Nuremburg Code, it is an international crime to order people to take an experimental medication.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team at Children’s Health Defense have filed suit over this.

As Mr. Kennedy and Meryl Nass write:

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), ‘authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,’ it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

And there are more interesting nuances:

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say ‘Comirnaty’ on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from a generous retinue of liability protections.

But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford’s exploding Pinto, or Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.

The forces for and against liberty are lining up, and the battle will be fought in the courts, in the workplace, in the media, and in the minds and the hearts and souls of our loved ones and neighbors.

Some people are standing up for what it right.

Who will do so in DC?


Related: Former HHS Sebelius Says the Unvaxxed Shouldn't Be Allowed At Work | MRCTV