Leftists Mock Anti-Mandate Lawyers Who Tested Positive For COVID - and Totally Missed the Point

P. Gardner Goldsmith | January 10, 2022
Font Size

In bursts of uninhibited bombast, prominent members of the leftist American Twitterati saw fit Friday to lambaste two attorneys who argued in the Supreme Court for freedom from Joe Biden’s jab mandates, and, in so doing, said leftists revealed blindness to the fact that the news actually bolstered practical arguments against jab mandates.

Of course, the ignorant statements and practical revelations aren’t relevant to the fact that such mandates are neither constitutional nor moral, but they do add to the ever-growing mountain of evidence that jab-pushers seem either disinterested in logic or incapable of logical thought.

As Reuters reported January 7, the lawyers in the limelight are Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers and Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who both presented their arguments to the Supreme Court that day via electronic means, because they had tested “positive” for COVID19. No word as to what kinds of tests they took, nor the reliability of the tests, but those are side-issues to the subsequent explosions of vitriol coming from the left like twisted sheets of bubble-wrap.

One of the first to the circus was Aaron Parnas, who describes himself on Twitter as, “Proud Miamian | Attorney | Democratic strategist | Views are my own | Retweets ≠ endorsements” and is the cohost of the “ZoomedIn Podcast.” Evidently unable to think before expressing himself, or too preoccupied with his countdown to what he appears to hope is a defeat of Ron DeSantis in the next Florida gubernatorial election, the attorney and “proud Miamian” expostulated this about the two COVID-positive lawyers:

JUST IN: Two lawyers that argued against Biden's vaccine mandate in front of the Supreme Court have tested positive for COVID. The irony.


It seems that this attorney doesn’t grasp the meaning of the word.

Related: US District Court Orders FDA To Speed-Up Release Of Tax-Paid Pfizer Jab Safety Data | MRCTV

And this e-bleat hints at a few other salient insights.

First, solicitor Parnas doesn’t know to use the word “who” rather than “that” when writing about other human beings.

Second, solicitor Parnas’ derisive attitude belies the much-ballyhooed lefty “concern” about “public” health, and reveals a rather callous attitude towards two individuals who appear to have come down with the “positive test.” Perhaps he’s not as worried about “positive tests” as he and other jab-mandate backers portray themselves to be?

Or, as implied by his errant reference to two humans as things “that” tested positive, rather than people WHO tested positive, perhaps he doesn’t consider them quite human.

Or perhaps he doesn’t care much about other people, in general.

Regardless, his outburst also serves-up the third insight…

He didn’t bother to acknowledge that the two lawyers who tested positive had been “fully jabbed.”

Which, as noted, kinda undercuts Parnas' pro-jab-mandate argument.

A Twitter user using the handle of Agnostic Libertarian almost immediately called him on the point, writing:

Just in: Two vaccinated lawyers arguing for Liberty against tyrannical overreach demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the product that people don’t want to be forced to take.


Twitter User Adam2022 went further, questioning the method by which Flowers and Murrill were termed “Covid-positive,” and writing, in part:

Tested by what method??? The PCR test has been tossed by the CDC as inaccurate…

Of course, none of that appears important to Parnas, or to others who could have used their noggins to figure out that being “fully-jabbed” with gene-manipulating serums, yet showing “positive” for the virus, is an information combo that doesn’t help them argue in favor of forcing others to get jabbed.

Seemingly oblivious to the torrent of clear-eyed analysis of this reality, another brilliant legal mind, retired attorney Jeanne Mann, who decorates her official Twitter page with the proud hashtag “RESIST,” must resist the process of firing up brain cells to figure out the basics of this simple syllogism. Instead, shortly after the info about Flowers and Murrill emerged, she wrote:

Need an example of #Covidiots - let me present to you Exhibit A: State lawyers arguing against Biden vaccine mandates test positive for COVID-19 | Reuters

And, of course, she added numerous laughing-crying emojis, because she’s so, so, so concerned about people catching the plague of COVID19.

All of which lends credence to the inference that she, Parnas, and many other leftists who push the unconstitutional and immoral thuggery of jab mandates do not care about individuals, but about power. For them, perhaps, power over others -- that power to compel and coerce and cajole through stolen tax funds and broken constitutional promises – is a means to an end. Perhaps they believe that avoiding facts and oaths and the personal liberty of others are ways they can achieve an end of protecting the “mass,” even as they overlook the fact that the mass a state-backed illusion, that the mass simply is composed of individuals with inherent, God-given rights, and that by disregarding the welfare and rights of the individual, they undercut everyone they would claim to be part of their magic mass.

It’s callous and illusory – just like the attitude and projected "care" in their Tweets.

But their tenacious grasp of this childish attitude and their flip snark help us recognize the problem of collectivism, and reaffirm not only the fact that these jab mandates and the funds thrown at the jabs are completely offensive to the Constitution, but also help us reaffirm the worth of the individual in the face of their insulting gangland invective.

Related: Haven't They Learned? Conn. Dept. of Health Asking Nursing Homes to Accept 'COVID-Positive People' | MRCTV

mrc merch