All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2021 - Kash's Corner
31:21
Kash’s Corner: Vaccine Mandates Will Endanger National Security If Biden Follows Through
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody and welcome back to Cash's Corner.
I think on everybody's mind these days are vaccine mandates.
Yeah.
President Biden has, you know, issued, I think back in September, September 9th, I think, this uh contract the uh vaccine mandates for the workplace, any workplace over a hundred people.
People are gonna need to be vaccinated or get weekly testing, as I understand it.
Now, just recently we have Governor Abbott who's issued kind of a counter mandate, if you will, that that vaccine mandates.
There's no business in Texas that can do that.
And you know, a lot of questions on people's minds.
What does this mean?
Which one is actually gonna hold true?
How's this gonna work?
Well, if I could predict that with any degree of certainty, I could, you know, I should just go play the lotto.
But um I'll lay out what I think is the legal groundwork for it and then where it's heading in that specific area of states versus federal.
So there's this act, OSHA, OSHA, uh regarding uh health across the country.
It's a federal statute, federal law, so applies across the country that President Biden used to uh both write his executive order and the act itself is the mechanism by which they're supposed to implement it if they're following the act.
And what the federal law says is that if there's, and this is a simplification of it, if there is a grave health concern, then under this OSHA Act, the president through OSHA can regulate certain sectors of American industry, let's call it from coast to coast, if there's a grave, grave health danger.
So the question that hasn't been answered because COVID is, you know, it's only it is two years old, but it hasn't been determined by any federal court whether or not COVID, the virus, is a grave health concern under the OSHA Federal Act.
And so that's the question that the federal court, a judge, is going to have to answer.
And here's what I predict on that front.
Um, as our viewers know, federal judges sit across the country, and then the country's sort of split up into different circuits, as we call it, numbered circuits, regions.
And so those federal circuits don't necessarily have the same exact law as the next one.
And as you go up the appellate system from the district court to the circuit court of appeals, then you have the Supreme Court who has to who decides the law for the country.
And on important legislation and important executive orders like this one, I suspect this is going to go up to the Supreme Court pretty quickly because there will probably be different appellate courts throughout the country that decide differently on whether or not COVID is a grave health concern under OSHA, so that President Biden can enact his uh executive order, um which I think we'll get to here.
Well, so then there's a lot of nuance here.
I mean, this is really fascinating because, you know, for example, I think for the first time that I'm aware of, uh, the New York Times actually published uh and to and talked about in a very prominent article, the basically age distribution of deaths, the age distribution of risk effectively uh for COVID.
And so on the very low end, very young people are at minimal, very, very minimal risk, unvaccinated young kids and so forth, extremely low risk, according to these tables.
Actually, this data has been replicated, has been around for a very long time.
Whereas people on the high end, you know, 70 plus and so forth are actually at significantly higher risk.
So, you know, you're you're talking about something that is is a broad application across, you know, everybody.
And I I'm not a uh a medical doctor, but from what the data says, the risk is just so tiny to young people and significant to older people.
Well, that's a great distinction because the act just says is X a grave health concern, right?
It doesn't say is it a grave health concern for this group and this group or this age bracket or this region of the country, it just says grave health concern.
So that's a great point that I'm sure people are gonna have to grapple with because if it if you're and I'm just making stuff up Here for purposes of example, but if you're under 40 years old and the statistics show that your your chances of dying from COVID are very, very, very low, then it's going to be hard for the Biden administration to go into federal court and say it's a grave health concern.
Now the flip side is maybe they'll go into federal court and use statistics that say if you're over 50 and you're you know you get COVID, your chances of uh of dying go up.
I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but that those are the types of arguments they're going to have to make now.
There's a thousandfold difference basically across the spectrum.
I didn't know that.
So that's gonna be very if I were a federal judge, um, you know, I I would I would say, how can you say under OSHA that COVID is a grave health risk if the scale is as you say a thousandfold different?
It might be a grave health concern for this end of the scale, but what about 75% on down to zero?
If it's not, then how do they meet that scale?
And the working population, because uh the the real threat, again, from the data that I've seen is to the people that are already kind of outside of the workforce, which would be typically mandated in or I would imagine would be outside of the work.
So I think this mandate, as you as you um alluded to earlier, speaks to companies that have a hundred people or more.
So it's also going to be a deciding distinction going a step further and saying not every company is going to be mandated under this executive order that President Biden issued.
It's if you have a hundred employees or more.
Well, well, how do they come up with that number, right?
And are you talking about a hundred employees or more at a bar, or are you talking about a hundred employees or more at a elderly daycare center?
You know, these are widely varying, as you said, um on the scale, distinctions of people who are susceptible to COVID, and if they get it, what's the impact on their body and their immune system?
And are they actually going to die?
And so the younger crowd, very, very unlikely that they will.
So not a grave health concern.
The older crowd, probably so, especially if uh if they have pre-existing conditions or complications.
So it's going to be interesting.
The other issue, I mean, we'll get to the private companies like Boeing and all that and United Airlines and Southwest in a second, but the whole state versus federal law issue comes into play, which you you mentioned with Governor Abbott in Texas, and I don't, I think Ron DeSantis did something similar in Florida.
Well, I mean, I think Ron DeSantis is issuing, you know, fines from what I understand for any business which forces mandates.
Yeah.
I mean, it's gonna be easy.
I mean, so I think Texas, uh, as you said, basically issued a law that said, okay, we're going to counteract an executive order.
Right?
This gets really complicated now because it's not a law.
Joe Biden's executive order is not a federal statute.
It's an EO.
And so EOs have much less authority against state law than a federal law would.
That that's the whole thing that's we call it separation of powers, right?
And the supremacy clause in the constitution comes into play.
Basically, if there's a state law and a federal law that speak to the same issue, the federal law trumps the state law.
Unless the federal law is unconstitutional.
That's like the simplest way of putting it.
But here you're not talking about, and I know Gensaki went to the podium and cited the supremacy clause, but here you're not talking about a federal law.
You're talking about an executive order enacted through a federal law.
So one, is that constitutional to do it that way?
Two, is it a grave risk?
And three, the judges are gonna have to decide in these districts, like Texas.
I'm sure it's going to court if it's not already on its way.
Does the supremacy clause even apply?
And if so, how?
And they're gonna have to define whether or not it's a grave risk.
And then the third step under OSHA, which we didn't discuss was this is sort of this executive order, if it's constitutional permissible, is an intermediate fix.
Uh the president and OSHA have to, per the federal statute under OSHA, which this was enacted, issue a permanent solution.
That's what the federal statute says.
So I don't know what the permanent solution is.
So is this just uh a band-aid?
Because that's all this federal statute permits, and what's the federal solution going to be?
It's I think that's even more problematic.
Well, and so then here's the other piece, okay.
So, you know, I've had uh Dr. Jay Battacheria, the one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration on the show, he was talking about how he Expects that you know COVID will basically go through the population and not too long a course of time, so to speak.
We've had Alex Baronson recently on Joe Brogan talking about the same thing.
That's the that that's the reality.
We also have this reality that the vaccines um basically only kind of initially stop infection and transmission and very quickly fall off.
So infection and transmission are not things that that really the vaccines can help with.
What they do seem to help with is serious disease.
So how does this so that with with this?
It raises more questions.
Right, right, right.
Um I don't know.
I mean, so I again I'm not also not a doctor, to my parents' chagrin.
Um but uh vaccine, is this a vaccine?
Like, you know, I get the flu shot, it but it's not a flu vaccine because it doesn't guarantee you're not going to get the flu.
And so I sort of analogize this situation to that, because people get the flu every year.
Unfortunately, lots of elderly people die from the flu every year.
A lot, actually.
And it's been around for what, over a century.
And so the vaccines that people have been taking um that are now mandated uh under this EO, well, it's coming to s the scientific studies are showing that people who actually get the vaccine, a lot of them are getting COVID.
So it's not a vaccine under the as I view what a vaccine would be.
You take it to become a good thing.
At least the original definition, because by the way, the definition has been changed from what I understand.
So include these types of mRNA well the i it was changed because um the mRNA vaccines are a new product.
They have a new way of functioning, basically.
And so I again I I the the this type of functioning of a product has been now added to the definition of vaccine.
So technically, according to the new new new definitions, they are vaccines.
Well, I think that's what frustrates people, right?
Like most people across America aren't doctors, aren't hip to all the nuances and medical definitions.
They're like, oh, vaccine.
I get the chicken pox vaccine when I'm a kid, so I don't ever get chicken pox.
You know, that's how most Americans think.
So they see COVID vaccine and they think this is a vaccine.
And so they think that it basically prevents infection.
Yeah.
And that's why people that's why m many people, and I've always said this to people, like, I recommend you take the vaccine, but I I do not support any mandate of the vaccine because there's so many health situations that uh people have encountered that would actually, if they took the vaccine, it would be bad for them.
Um actually I've heard of many, many women who are trying to have babies that their doctors have recommended not taking the vaccine to them because of complications during pregnancy that matter to write.
So that's just one area where are you going to force a company who has over a hundred people to take a vaccine?
Are you gonna mandate the vaccine to those who their medical doctors saying if you take that um your chances of getting pregnant go down, or because you have this virus or this disease predicting condition, it's gonna complicate your health.
How can you mandate someone to get sicker?
Well, and then there's another element too, which is of course, you know, the the elephant in the room all the time is the natural immunity element, right?
Right.
Uh which is, you know, essentially if if there's again, based on the data as I understand it, you know, my li my limited understanding, but there's a heck of a lot of data that basically says the same thing, which says that that natural immunity is very robust and much more effective and even even preventing infection and certainly uh uh serious disease than uh than the vaccine.
So it's it's a very it's effective to have it.
Yeah, and and then what do those people do that have had it, right?
And have built up the autoimmunity themselves, they've had it, they have better protection as the science shows than any vaccine would give them.
But a lot of these a lot of these mandates are saying you have to go get the vaccine anyway.
Like what's the point?
And then they can't get into restaurants or wherever they go unless they show their vaccine card pursuant to this mandate.
So I haven't seen any um uh I haven't seen any addressing by this White House of that specific issue to say, well, what if you've had COVID and you have the antibodies, then do you need a vaccine?
Well, and this is one of these things that you know you would hope that would be you know, there would be you know some sort of fairly large scale study going on to sort of establish what is the prevalence of people with natural immunity within the population, because that actually I I think obviously incredibly significant beyond you know the prevalence of vaccination in in the population and so forth.
And I just might add uh one more thing.
Uh there are companies, like I'm aware, for example, that Intel has decided that in its uh uh rules, it counts natural immunity.
It counts you know, antibody count uh uh instead of vaccination.
So that's an another interesting approach, aside from the question of whether you know it's ethical or reasonable to have mandates at all if you are gonna have some kind of mandate, you know at least this company has decided that natural immunity does count towards that.
And you know, and that should be their choice, that's my opinion.
But then how does that how does that square with the the executive order, right?
I and then that's another thing that this administration hasn't taken into account when they issued the executive order, and that's another thing they're gonna have to answer in federal court, and they're probably not gonna have a good answer for it because they're saying this federal th this this large company has issued its own set of rules, and so I think you'll see individuals from that company eventually challenge this EO, like other companies that we're gonna talk about in a minute.
Are, but just circling back to something you said right before that, it's sort of the information about COVID and the vaccine and the science behind it, um, there's such great distrust right now across the country and what to believe, because there's been so much misinformation put out about it.
But also there's been information that they that when the virus first came out, people thought would was correct and was later proven to be incorrect.
And unfortunately, you have guys like you know, in my personal opinion, Fauci, who have lost, you know, he's supposed to be the leading voice on how to deal with COVID, and he has become one of the least credible voices in my opinion on how to deal with COVID.
Because he's first he comes out and he says, you know, we're gonna have this under control and there's gonna be a vaccine, it's be all right.
Then he comes out and says, No Christmas.
You know, and people are just like or we don't, we're not sure.
Right.
You know, we're not sure, but yeah.
Your lead medical expert in the US government is supposed to be able to communicate information credibly.
And I think what is hurting America's reaction to COVID is that they don't have any actual guidance from their government.
So they have a lot of distrust on mandates, on vaccines, on work, work atmosphere, and on how to challenge their uh legal rights.
They just don't know.
And I think that's why you're gonna see a not just a small amount, a flurry of court cases across the country that have already started, I think.
So, you know, I get the the question is why not uh institute, you know, let's say a modicum of transparency and just say, look, here's what we know, here's what we don't know, here's what we're working on, here's what the the best information on the science, you know, I don't know, have a website that that shows these things.
That's a great thing.
People do want clear-cut, I I do think it's true that people want to know the answer.
What how will I, what's how can I protect myself a hundred percent?
But that doesn't exist.
Everything is factors of risk, right?
If you're gonna take the vaccine, there's we nobody knows what the side effects are gonna be five years down the Ryan 10s, no one knows, right?
These are new products, right?
So these are, you know, this this is one of the arguments I've heard from ethicists, for example.
How can you mandate something where there's this unknown risk on something that nobody can know?
Like it's just it's not something that can be known by anybody at this point.
You know, so why shouldn't someone be able to make that decision for themselves?
Am I going to take that risk?
Why would you hide that reality from someone in the messaging and so forth?
Anyway, it all these uh questions, but it it it strikes me that the I think a lot of trust might be regained if there was this transparency, even though it's true, it's messy because there's just there are a lot of unknowns.
Yeah, I think that's a simple solution that unfortunately government doesn't know how to grapple or or deal with right now.
I think there's too much politics in the way to uh establish a website or database that allows Americans to just go and say, hey, here's all the actual empirical information.
Here's the age groups that have had COVID, here's the survivability, here's the age groups that have had COVID and died, here's the death rate, here's the people in those groups that were v vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
If you just put that information in one place, I agree with you, then the American public could start educating themselves on at least what is and isn't a good option for their own personal health.
Um it just doesn't exist and unfortunately, I don't think it's going to exist because COVID has become, you know, a political lightning rod.
And it's not going anywhere anytime soon uh because we get new variants and then those variants come and go and then they're the efficacy of the vaccine against the variants and then states rights come into play and that's what we're talking about here.
Well and just like just like any uh it would be expected that a respiratory virus that functions like this will become endemic i i will just be circulating in the population right much like the flu is and so forth.
But you know so just something that struck me, I'll just say this kind of for the record.
That what I would like to see on every state database website is something where you have age stratification and comorbidities.
Because those are the two things again from my limited perspective right that those are the two things which seem to have the biggest impact on risk.
And you you know you could pretty quickly if you had a table like that um you could pretty quickly see where you fall you know in the risk risk categories.
That's a great idea unfortunately I don't think they're gonna take you up on it.
I I I think I've seen something like that on uh some on a local site or something I but anyway that there it is.
We'll see but okay so you know DOD let's let's talk about that.
Okay, so there are a lot of military service people who are very, very concerned about being mandated.
They don't want to be coerced.
Maybe they have questions like we've described.
What's the reality in DOD?
Yeah, so look, having served both as a civilian operationally and then as chief of staff leading the Department of Defense, I know lots of these individuals.
I still have lots of friends that are still in service.
And I've talked to them privately about it they're like I'm not taking the vaccine you know and this is gonna come down to a situation where you know Joe Biden has issued a mandate for the military to either be vaccinated or what?
They're gonna relieve you of command and kick you out of the military?
You know that's going to court if that happens but I think my prediction is Joe Biden's going to blink.
Um because here's the one thing the military doesn't do they don't most of the military at least they don't care about the politics.
But what they do want the ability to do is to choose what's best health wise for them and their family, right?
These these folks have family so if they get a vaccine how does it impact their family and things like that.
Look I've I've talked to a lot of my buddies in the special forces community okay um that I served with and a lot of them don't want to take and have not taken the vaccine.
So what's Joe Biden going to do?
Eliminate the tip of the spear of the United States military?
These guys train for 20 years to get to the positions they're in.
What are we going to do when they when they're excised from the military because Biden said you didn't take the vaccine mandate.
It's unrealistic.
You can't replace those guys overnight.
And not just them that's just the operational arm of the United States military that does some of our most dangerous operations.
What about the subject matter experts at the highest levels of the military be it in the nuclear program, the submarine program, the satellite programs a lot of these folks don't want to be mandated to take the vaccine.
I've talked to them what's he going to do?
Subject American national security to the interest of his executive order mandate.
I think you're going to see the administration blink because the military will will be in the right and I think you're going to see military members stand up and also seek a determination in federal court for their rights because they have the same rights as everybody else does under a different set of rules sometimes because of the military and uniform code of justice but um they still have due process rights.
They still have rights to um under HIPAA and everything else regarding their health and what they can and can't do.
So it's interesting I don't see how President Biden makes the United States military get the COVID vaccine.
You know it just also makes me think of uh the Seattle uh police department the union has been is basically saying there's going to be kind of a devastating loss of of personnel if these mandates kind of go through.
Yeah and and this they've already had a devastating loss with this the autonomous zone.
But I think there's something like north of 300 police officers actually quit after that, from what I understand, which is you know, yeah.
I mean, and then and then the question for the courts will be, you know, what what what is more important in in terms of DOD, the National Security of the United States or this executive order about ma vaccine mandates and transferring that uh to law enforcement, where I also um served at the Department of Justice.
What's more important?
Policing our neighborhoods and having police to do that ability, or making them take a vaccine.
You can't repla it's not as if you can replace these people overnight.
If if one or two leave, it's still a problem because they still have rights that need to be um adjudicated by the courts, but we're talking about hundreds, if not thousands of people across the country.
You can't replace the military folks, you can't replace law enforcement folks in that fashion.
It's just impossible.
So I think there's a very good argument for them to stay in their jobs, and that's what I think will happen.
They'll likely stay in their jobs while these court challenges go to court, get in these things called injunctions and whatnot, where there's a stay or pause of the of the mandate by the president, uh by the courts of the president's mandate, and basically the courts will say, Well, we're gonna decide while it's being decided, while people are arguing both sides, lawyers and everything, we're gonna hold off on making you get a vaccine.
Well, and to your point, I think a judge just prevented United uh airlines from basically doing that.
Um like United is one of the large companies, Boeing just issued a mandate, they've got 140,000 employees that they're saying have to be vaccinated.
Boeing's one of the largest companies on planet earth.
It's the biggest company in the defense industrial complex, I'm very familiar with.
And United also, huge employer, uh, not just in America, but around the world, and they mandated the vaccine.
And so a lot of those people, those are private citizens, right?
They're not law enforcement, they're not military, these are private citizens, and there's a lot of them.
And there are companies telling them you can't have a job, basically, unless you get this vaccine.
And that I think is also a court challenge for a whole different set of reasons than the mandate.
That doesn't even necessarily say I guess the companies are saying because of the mandate, we Boeing, we united are saying our employees are mandated.
Maybe um that's how they convince themselves that that was okay to do.
I disagree with it, but I think those court cases um for their employees are also, as you said, United's already in court and the federal judge issued a stay saying, well, we're not going to be able to decide this in the near term because there's too many arguments, too much information that has to be presented to the judge before he can make an actual decision.
So he said, pause, there's an injunction, everybody at United can continue to work as if there was no mandate until he makes his ruling.
And then here's what's going to happen as soon as he makes his ruling.
Doesn't matter who wins or loses, it's going to get appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, and that's going to get appealed to this US Supreme Court.
So it's going up there.
Well, and so this is what strikes me.
This is very interesting because I mean, will this actually provide an opportunity for the public to actually see these arguments?
Right?
Given the reality of the vaccines, which we discussed earlier, right?
It's it's of questionable value, right?
Is this the opportunity for Americans to actually understand the reality of these arguments?
Well, I think so if they want to, right?
The the the sort of the the greatness of America's judicial system is it's public at the state level and at the federal level.
So if the if the government, the Biden administration, comes in and files a pleading, as we call it, or a memorandum of law, that memo is public, and anyone can go pull it and read it.
And the same with these companies and same with these individuals representing the in uh at DOD or in the lawyers on both sides can bring in their experts and say this is what our experts are gonna say, and also the hearings themselves that will occur before a judge with witnesses, those are public.
So the media will be in there reporting on it.
So it takes time, and it's a lot of it's a lot of information that's gonna be pumped into different federal courthouses and state courthouses throughout the country, because lots of people are bringing these challenges.
So there's not going to be one uniform place where you can go And say, oh, hey, they just filed this case.
This speaks for the whole country.
It doesn't.
But when it ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, then there's only going to be two sides, you know, the government and the defendant.
And there's going to be one set of pleadings that everybody can read, and there's going to be one decision.
That's the point of the Supreme Court.
And then it'll be reported on by the media.
Yeah, well, that's the problem.
In various ways.
Yeah.
And that's, you know, we we we laugh about it, but it's on, you know, it's pretty tragic that the credibility of most in the media is so shot right now that they don't have faith in the ability of a credible report coming from them out of a case that's going on that will eventually go to the Supreme Court.
So I think that's also further problematic because most people don't have the time.
They don't have two, three days to review pleadings, listen to witness testimony, listen to expert testimony, digest it all and figure it all out.
They don't, they're working, they have families, they have things to do.
So they rely on the media for it and and the media is proven, you know, largely unreliable when it comes to big, big matters uh uh for the country.
And this is basically a national security matter.
You know, I referenced this uh recent article in the New York Times.
Sometimes it takes it seems like it takes a long time for information to get through, but sometimes it gets through.
For example, um this issue of the COVID origins, okay.
You know, in April 2020, when we did our uh documentary just talking about the reality that it may well have originated from uh the Wuhan lab, given the you know various circumstantial evidence and the way the virus worked.
It it took another, I don't I can't remember how long, but something like a year at least before there was, you know, sort of the admission that that that that broad admission in the media that that that this is some that this is at least a possibility.
Um similarly, I think we've known for well again, at least a yeah, I think a year, year and a half that this age stratification around COVID has existed.
It's obviously incredibly significant.
Um and so that that's made it into a prominent place in the New York Times.
Perhaps this is a signal that the broader population will get to learn about these things that we may be able to have like a public, you know, sort of a uh public discourse around this that isn't purely extreme political polarization around some of the most, you know, kind of important issues facing us, of you know, life and death issues potentially.
Yeah, I mean, I it would be nice.
I think the the biggest impediment to that is going to be Congress, because they've made it so political, um, they've made it so polarizing, and forcing people to be it this vaccine or another vaccine, mandating it just so you can continue to work and earn a living and provide for your family, only extrapolates that problem even more so.
And you would think, you would hope, that there would be Democrats and Republicans that can get together on this issue and say, hey, why don't we at least put out the empirical data that we have at our disposal as a federal government?
Why don't we create a website and s and let Americans read it and put out the ages, put out the people who have had it like we talked about and all that, and as much information as you can, data, put it out there.
What's wrong with that?
And they don't want to do it.
Because they've politicized it so much that they're literally some, not all, some, are using it as basically a campaign issue for the midterm elections which are coming up in a year.
Which means they need to keep it a political decision and not a database decision.
I guess we'll see what'll happen.
Yeah.
It's gonna be a minute.
We'll be talking about it for a while.
Well, Cash, I think it's time for our shout-out.
Yeah, I think you're right, Jan.
And and given this week's discussion that you and I have had about the COVID vaccine mandate, and so many of the comments from our our viewers, which we appreciate about answering questions.
One, we hoped we answered a lot of your questions, but this week's shout-out really is for all those individuals who don't want to be mandated uh to take a COVID vaccine.
I think people should take a vaccine, but I respect your right not to be mandated to do so, and I think you guys are gonna be right in the long run.
▲
Export Selection