EPIC: Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro SLAMS Lockdowns and Leftist DC Hypocrites

P. Gardner Goldsmith | December 27, 2020
Font Size

There still are some courageous dissenters on major news media - folks who, when they speak in favor of the constitutional provisions that are supposed to insulate individual rights from federal and state attack, and who slam the poisonous double-standards of politicians at every level, could be served well by having epic soundtracks behind them. 

Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro just emerged as one such paladin, and what she offered about the Lockdown League could have been backed by something from the mighty Tchaikovsky. Saturday, December 26, Pirro threw rhetorical fists at lockdown-happy governors and hypocritical politicians, opening with a fiery salvo directed at the left-led Congress, and, specifically, her Highness, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), recalling the San Francisco Queen's artificial and insulting appearance on late night TV a few months ago when, in what seemed to be an attempt to “identify with the people” while plugging a politically-connected ice cream maker, she showed off pint after pint of creamy delight in her expensive freezer. Now, Pirro pointed out, Pelosi has taken her hypocritical high-falutin' attitude to new heights, saying:

But this week topped even Nancy Pelosi’s shameless, 'I’m rich and you’re not' theater, as she posed eating ice cream in front of her $24,000.00 refrigerator freezer claiming that her rows of $13 a pint chocolate ice cream was helping her deal with the pandemic.

What pandemic? There’s no pandemic for people like you, Nancy. You constantly violate the rules you pass. The pain and the pleas of working people fall on deaf ears, as you claim to not understand why people are against lockdown orders.

And she was just getting started.

Your cold response, ‘shelter in place’, is really the answer? Really? You phony, condescending, fraudulent hypocrite, as you, the most powerful elected House Democrat, pontificate that we simply need to listen to the science, you march through a salon without a mask like a Queen immune from any laws or science.

You and your ilk violate your own rules so often, it’s clear, you believe not only that you are above the law, but also that the rules serve no purpose other than to suppress and defeat us. 

You and California Governor Gavin Newsom shut us down, yet selfishly dine at restaurants so beyond the reach of people you seek to suppress that you’re creating an unnecessary class war.

The Fox News host punched so hard that, almost immediately, people online began acknowledging her trenchant and vibrant televised offering. One was Breitbart’s Jeff Poor, who offered a transcript of her statement, and wrote:

Saturday, FNC’s Jeanine Pirro attacked the ruling class’s hypocrisy when it comes to lockdowns and how the rules apply to small business but not corporations.

The Fox News host took special exception to those allowed to ignore the rules of the pandemic if their activities fit a social justice narrative.

Pirro was on a roll, but before we go on, it’s important to note a couple definitional points that should not be forgotten or overlooked in the midst of feeling that resonant indignation. First, the label of “pandemic” for the COVID19 outbreak is debatable, based on the World Health Organization’s own definition of the word prior to May 2009, when they lowered the standard in what some argue was a politicized attempt to provide cover for erroneously huge governmental responses to H1N1 -- a virus that was not as deadly as expected, and for which many people had forms of preexisting immunological defenses. As Peter Doshi admitted in 2011 on The World Health Organization Bulletin:

Central to this debate has been the question of whether H1N1 influenza should have been labelled a ‘pandemic’ at all. The Council of Europe voiced serious concerns that the declaration of a pandemic became possible only after WHO changed its definition of pandemic influenza. It also expressed misgivings over WHO’s decision to withhold publication of the names of its H1N1 advisory Emergency Committee.3

And The BMJ notes that the original definition read:

An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness... When a major change in either one or both of their surface proteins occurs spontaneously, no one will have partial or full immunity against infection because it is a completely new virus. If this new virus also has the capacity to spread from person-to-person, then a pandemic will occur.

Since most people did, indeed, have partial immunity to Wuhan SARS COV-2 (COVID19) and since the fatality numbers are impossible to know because the US government has been PAYING medical facilities to claim deaths were COVID19-caused when COVID19 might not have been the cause, the use of the term “pandemic” when describing this viral outbreak can be disputed. 

Of course, that’s a minor issue when discussing Pirro’s excellent speech, but it’s important to remember when discussing the issue of COVID19 itself, and the same applies to the term “the science”, since the so-called science handed to us from the politically connected is so ridiculously sketchy and unscientific. As Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research writes:

Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t.

One suspects Pirro was being sarcastic about the so-called “science” as well, especially given the context of her monologue, which explosively continued, nailing the emotional reality of fascistic lockdown promoters who claim the divine power to deem some workers worthy and some, not worthy, of retaining their right to engage in peaceful market transactions:

Admit it. You don’t even believe what you’re saying. And by the way, is it even your role to say who should work and who shouldn’t? Why can’t one store be open, but not another?

As I have mentioned at MRCTV, in political-economics, fascism is understood as the nominal -- in name only -- ownership of a business that is controlled by political edicts, and that includes licensing mandates just to operate. Typically, such claims of government power lead to only the big, corporate, politically-cozy being favored by the politicians. 

And that’s exactly what Pirro observed:

As Democrats look to crush small business, Target, Costco, Home Depot, and Amazon and the Big Box companies, they are all thriving. Small businesses selling the same items are not allowed to open. But you keep saying listen to the science. What science? Where are the numbers that support the closing of all restaurants in New York, New Jersey and California when there is only a 1.4 percent COVID spread?

It is important to note that even IF the spread were higher, there would be no constitutional or moral claim by any level of government to impose lockdowns. Again, as I have mentioned in other pieces at MRCTV, the Contract Clause of the US Constitution forbids state governments from interfering with the fulfillment of existing contracts, making it unconstitutional for state politicians to close operating businesses that have any agreements with employees, customers, or suppliers, and lockdowns breach much of the Bill of Rights as well.

Similarly, when Judge Jeanine slams politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for getting one of the still-limited vaccine shots, even though AOC is 31 and at very low risk of dying from COVID, while others who aren’t getting huge tax-paid salaries and are older are forced to wait for it, Pirro neglects to mention that federal funding for and delivery of any vaccine, any time, is not sanctioned by the Constitution. And, Pirro also neglects to make the same observation about federal unemployment “COVID19 relief” as it’s so absurdly called. Not only is that not sanctioned by the so-called rules of the country, it’s money taken from future generations to hand it to the present.

But Pirro got a fire lit, and it’s a flame of righteous indignation properly directed at Pelosi, the Lockdowners, and the foolish people who blindly support their insane mandates and pork spending, even as they turn blind eyes to their hypocrisy.

Pirro’s eyes are wide open, and if she misses some points, she offers us a great opportunity to expand on her fiery delivery and to remember all of these lessons.

And to tell the lockdown hypocrites and big-spenders that we will not forget.