Covid Mandate Jokes

1. I was going to tell a Covid symptom joke...

but it was bad taste

2. Plus, you might have died from laughter

Although 99.95% of you would not have

3. When George Washington ordered his men to be inoculated against small pox, why didn't he order those who had already had small pox to be inoculated as well?

The CDC hadn't been created yet

4. What's the difference between Moderna's vaxx and cocaine?

It takes more than two shots of cocaine to cause a heart attack

5. How were scientists able to develop safe and effective vaccines in months when everyone said it would take years?

They didn't

6. How is it that almost zero Americans have suffered side-effects from the FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccine?

Almost zero Americans have ever been injected with it.

7. For unvaccinated college kids, what is the difference between getting Covid and having a hangover?

Odds are they will have another hangover

8. Since Covid does not pose a real risk to children, why do their parents get them vaccinated?

Because they are sick

9. Does the "vaccine" injection leave a scab?

No, but it can create one

Saint Benedict, Patron Saint of Poison, Pray for Us

Saint Benedict first rejected the spiritual poisons of decadent life in Rome.

He lived as a hermit for three years in a cave near Enfide.

Others recognized his spiritual strength. After a while, a group of monks asked him to become their leader. Knowing that they were not yet truly committed to a life of work and prayer, Saint Benedict warned them that his leadership would be too much for them. Despite these warnings, they asked him to lead them. Reluctantly, he accepted.

As he had predicted, the monks grew to resent his stern command. First they attempted to kill him by giving him a poison-laced cup. But when he blessed the cup, it shattered.

Second, they attempted to kill him by poisoning his bread. A raven snatched it away.

From this, we have the adage today, "Fool me once, shame on you -- Fool me, twice, shame on me."


Or perhaps not. In either event, twice was enough and Saint Benedict fled from those monks. He went on to establish a number of monasteries that followed the Rule that he wrote down, the most important of which was the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino. His influence on Europe is unsurpassed by any other figure after him. It all began with rejection of poison.


What does this have to do with America in 2021?

Poison, both physical and spiritual is all around us. It flows over the air in radio waves, through the ground in internet cables, and through our bloodstreams in the form of medically approved, if evil and destructive, formulas like Oxycotin® (aka heroin), Kyleena® (aka birth control), and Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone (aka "gender affirming hormones" which act to halt the biological processes of puberty).

Additionally, we are now poisoned by the fell fruit of our own sin in the form of chemical products ("vaccines") that are derived from the flesh of children cut down before they could be born. Three times in the Old Testament (Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21), God told his people, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Does this fickle people need Him to tell us now that we should not inject into the veins of the mother the flesh of her murdered child? Can we not recognize this poison without further inquiry?

Surrounded by poison, let us reject it and pray with Saint Benedict,

Vade retro satana: Vade retro Satana! Numquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!
'Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!'

Michael Yoder's New, VERY INTERESTING Complaint Makes it 5 Cases Challenging the Federal Employee Vaxx Mandate

As reported by Under Cover DC, attorney Michael Yoder (who filed the first complaint against the EO on 9-23) filed another complaint on October 24 (Church v. Biden, Case 1:21-cv-02815) in which he makes shocking allegations about the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force's handling of the Mandate. 

Of particular interest, the complaint alleges:

B.    THE TASK FORCE’S SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF’S OF THEIR FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

 

50.                  Since the day President Biden issued the Vaccine Mandate, hundreds of thousands of federal government employees have been in complete disarray. Federal employees with serious, life-threatening conditions and others with sincerely held religious beliefs, such as Plaintiffs, have frantically sought guidance on how to obtain reasonable accommodations.

51.                  Due to the rapidly approaching deadline and Defendants’ full awareness that Plaintiffs have the fundamental right to engage in the free exercise of religion, Defendants concocted a scheme that imposes a “deadline” to submit religious exemption requests to help “evaluate the scope” of how many federal employees have sincerely held religious beliefs prohibiting compliance with the vaccine requirement. After determining the scope, the Task Force instructed the agencies to “collect information” through a questionnaire calculated to elicit information the agencies can then use as the basis for denying a respondent’s exemption request.

52.                  Video Footage from an October 8, 2021 Task Force Zoom call¹⁴ involving nearly 200 high-level officials from various agencies reveals Samuel Berger, a former Senior Advisor in

¹³ The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 (excluding the Government Accountability Office). Id. at § 3.

¹⁴ Samuel Berger, COVID-19 Guidance Zoom Meeting, SAFER FEDERAL WORKFORCE TASK FORCE (Oct. 8, 2021);

see Exhibit 5.

the Obama Administration and the former Vice President of Democracy for John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (“CAP”) discussing the methodical approach each agency is to take when dealing with religious exemptions.

53.                  The Task Force advised each agency¹⁵ to establish a deadline which the agencies are not to enforce – because there is no deadline imposed on the fundamental right to freely exercise religion – but rather, to use as a “forcing function” that will induce all or nearly all federal employees with sincerely held religious beliefs to submit their requests.

54.                  Once all or nearly all federal employees have submitted their religious exemption requests, the agencies, individually or in conjunction with the Task Force, can then “evaluate the scope” of how many federal employees wish to exercise their fundamental right to freely exercise their religion.

55.              The Task Force then directed the agencies to refrain from issuing any decisions, because “once you grant an exemption to an individual in a job category, it is very hard to say that you’re not going to grant [an exemption] to a similarly situated person.”

56.              The Task Force further instructed the agencies to “take their time” and the agencies “should not feel rushed that they have to take steps immediately” because it is important to “collect information” on federal employees, such as Plaintiffs, whose sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from complying with the vaccine requirement.

57.              To collect this information, the Task Force advised it provided the agencies with a religious exemption form with questions that are intended to elicit information from federal employees seeking religious exemptions. The Task Force directed the agencies to “work bearing

¹⁵ The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 (excluding the Government Accountability Office). See Exec. Order No. 14043 at § 3. It does not include the White House (“WH”), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the National Institute of Health (“NIH”).

 

in mind that a fair bit of thought went into the range of questions and the kind of information that [the questions] would provide.” The Task Force then gives the agencies authority to refuse to provide accommodations under whatever circumstances each agency so chooses.

58.              Rather than advising the agencies under what circumstances the refusal to provide an accommodation would constitute a violation of federal law or deprivation of fundamental rights, the Task Force merely emphasized how important it is for the agencies to “figure[e] it out as quickly as possible . . . because [the agencies are] not going to run an accommodation in those places–and that’s totally fine.”

59.              As a result, Defendants have either failed to implement a process by which     Plaintiffs and other federal employees are able to submit religious exemptions or implemented a process for Plaintiffs to provide information to Defendants to which they are not entitled in violation of current EEOC Guidance, federal statutory law, and Plaintiffs’ fundamental First Amendment right to engage in the free exercise of religion.

Why I am Suing the Federal Government (my Employer)

I have been a labor attorney with a federal agency for twelve years. As you can tell by context, the views expressed here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. 

On September 29, I filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  In my Complaint, I make a number of claims about President Biden's Executive Order No. 14043 (issued on September 9).  I will not repeat them all here. To understand the case, you will need to read the Complaint, the Defendant's Response, the Judge's Order, and my Response to that Order. In this post, I will provide some answers to common questions.

Why do you say that the Order is arbitrary?

The Order, and subsequent guidance, require that federal employees receive one of three hurriedly produced medical products unless they qualify for an "exception as required by law."  I argue that because exceptions required by law are not all-encompassing of those circumstances where exceptions should be granted by reason, the Order is unreasonable per se. 

I posit several "for instances" in the Complaint that have not been answered. One "for instance" was anticipated in the Complaint, but not made explicit until later in guidance published on the website of an entity called the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (SFWTF). Under the guidance there, where an employee suffers myocarditis after receiving a first shot, he is still required to get a second shot or lose his job. See page 8 of my Response. If you have ever had myocarditis or pericarditis (I have) you know it is not fun. This policy  is more like something I would expect to see in an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn novella than in official guidance from the government of the United States of America.

Another "for instance" are the people who have already beaten COVID-19 and have the antibodies to prove it. The lack of carve out for them is inconsistent with our vaccine policies for other diseases and inconsistent with the approaches of other governmental bodies, such as the European Union. See page 2 of my Response.

Another "for instance" is the 100% remote worker/teleworker. According to the guidance, even though a teleworker doesn't meet with the public or come into contact with coworkers, he still could and therefore he must take the second shot. See page 4 of my Response. Can the teleworker rule really be about keeping the public and coworkers safe or is it just proof that the Order is about exerting control over the lives of citizens as opposed to employees? I take offense when someone explains to me that he is requiring teleworkers to get injected for the safety of their coworkers, while telling me it's raining.

But if the above is not arbitrary, start stacking them together. You have an employee who was working remotely since before anyone heard of Wuhan, and this remote worker, who has already had COVID-19, takes the first shot and suffers from myocarditis following his first injection.  Any reasonable person would not make that man take a second shot. But there is no exception in the law for him.  

Doesn't the Caselaw Support the Government's Right to Require Vaccinations?

I address this issue in my Complaint and more comprehensively in my Response. There have been a couple of decisions that have come down in support of mandates, but the parties and the courts in cases like Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ, have operated on the assumption that these vaccines should be treated like traditional vaccines under the established law of vaccines. We have to stop and address the important issue: Should mRNA vaccines be treated under the caselaw developed for traditional vaccines? If the answer is, "Yes, because the CDC and the FDA say we should," that has no weight in my case where the Defendant controls those agencies.

General George Washington required his troops to inoculate against Smallpox at a time when Smallpox and other diseases were responsible for 90% of deaths among those troops, and when refraining from doing so would have put his army at a disadvantage against the mostly inoculated British forces. Those same troops of General Washington carried muskets, pistols, and rifles. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear such arms.  The natural progression of gun design eventually led to the machine gun/assault weapon.  But, the Supreme Court didn't blindly apply old law to this new technology. See  

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25, 627-28 (2008).  In form, substance, and purpose, the machine gun is more similar to the rifle than mRNA vaccines are to traditional vaccines. As the Supreme Court discussed in Heller, there are times when old law should apply to new technologies, but it should never be done blindly.

What about Johnson and Johnson's vaccine which is not an mRNA product?

Johnson & Johnson indeed has a product which might more rightfully bear the mantle of "vaccine." However, the J&J vaccine is an Emergency Use Authorization only product. If the EUA labeling didn't matter, the President would not have waited until after the FDA approved one of the products to issue his mandate.

But the Pfizer Product, Comirnaty, has been FDA Approved?

Comirnaty cannot be found. Instead, we are assured that the previously EUA-approved Pfizer-BioNTech is "interchangeable".  That may be good enough for government work, but where we are not playing with horseshoes, hand-grenades, or atom bombs, 'close' does not count.

As argued in my Response at page 4, the Order relies on a slight of hand, as in a game of Three-card Monte: one of them is a 'vaccine', one of them is FDA approved, some of them are available, but none is an FDA approved and widely available vaccine.

CSRA Preclusion....Do you have standing to bring this claim to Federal Court?

Civil Service Reform Act Preclusion is a challenge, but I believe that I have established grounds sufficient to overcome it. The harm that I argue for is system-wide. I don't think Congress, in passing the CSRA, intended to allow the President to take unilateral actions which will have the effect (whether as a feature or a bug) of clearing his political opposition from government employment. As I argue in my Response, litmus tests like this one will act as a backdoor to the "spoils system" if not checked.

Do you have a religious objection to the vaccines?

Yes. First, I am against anything created on the ill-gotten benefit of the bodies of our "aborted" (murdered) brothers and sisters.  Second, after private reflection, I believe that these products and the mandates requiring them are evil.  That is all that I am willing to say about my beliefs as they pertain to these products.  As a Catholic, I have to be careful because I do not want to be the cause of disunity in the Church. I am not saying that other Catholics are wrong or engaging in schism simply by detailing their reasons further. But for me, I am just not going there because I fear where such conversations could lead and how words can be twisted. I pray for the Pope, for unity in the Church, and for the intercession of the Patron Saint of Poison, Saint Benedict.

Can you represent other employees, or give them advice?

No. In taking this case, I am running a minefield of legal and ethical problems. As a federal employee/attorney, I am not allowed to represent anyone--except myself--against the federal government.  On the other hand, other federal employees might be able to help me.  Nothing stops me from talking to other federal employees as potential witnesses. I have argued that there is going to be significant harm to the system which will have the effect of spoiling the administrative process.  If my case goes forward,  having the testimony of employees at agencies like the CDC, FDA, MSPB, and EEOC might go a long way in advancing that theory.

Are you alone in this?

No, luckily I have a good friend, Daniel Flickinger, who has sacrificed many hours to help with the case. I can't thank him enough.

What can I do to help?

Pray for me, pray for those who don't have the resources to refuse these products, pray for justice, pray for our country.

Seven Years Later

I started this blog in 2011 and wrote fairly regularly for a couple of years. I discontinued it in 2014.

Seven years later, I thought I would dust the cobwebs off and try my hand at blog posting again.