Thinking About Challenging the Vaccine Mandate?
HillFaith is blessed with legions of readers who work on Capitol Hill for individual senators and representatives, as well as for congressional committees and agencies. There are also readers who don’t work on the Hill, but who care a great deal about what happens there. In other words, HillFaith’s readership is nationwide, and even international.
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel (Screenshot from Rumble).
We have heard from many of you outside of the Hill who are being pressured under threat of job loss or other penalties to be vaccinated against the Coronavirus Novel. Millions of other Americans are also being pressured and more than a few of them are choosing to defy the mandates.
If you are considering such a step, you need to know as much as possible about what such a decision entails for you and those close to you. Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is at the forefront of representing individuals and groups who are challenging the mandates at the federal, state and local government levels, as well as in the corporate world.
To be clear, HillFaith is not encouraging anybody to take any particular course of action. This post reflects the fact that HillFaith has been asked repeatedly about this issue. I received the Moderna vaccination earlier this year, but that was entirely by my choice, with my wife, Claudia.
But the First Amendment means what it says about religious freedom and I respect people who have made decisions for and against the mandate. The point here is, if you are considering defying the mandate, you should go into it eyes wide open. So you are encouraged to watch the following video in which Staver explains what is involved and crucial factors you need to consider:
You must make the government prove its prima facie case! They can’t, and their entire narrative will fall apart and the mandates denied. There are three (3) prongs:
1) To date NO COURT ANYWHERE has ruled that this alleged virus the government likes to call “covid” actually exists to a scientific and legal certainty under the scrutiny of Frye, et al. The government CANNOT prove this prong of its case;
2) to date NO COURT has judicially established, via evidence, that a health emergency exists. The government must be made to prove that this alleged covid has a greater health impact on society than the seasonal flu. Or obesity. Or heart disease. Or cancer. OR ALL THE FOREGOING COMBINED.
3) To date NO COURT has ruled that a genuine “pandemic” exists to a legal and scientific certainty. The government must be made to prove that a genuine “pandemic” exists of such magnitude as to warrant the invocation of statutory “emergency power” laws that infringe on fundamental constitutional rights.
It is impossible for the government to prove their prima facie case. Overwhelming contrary evidence abounds proving the falsity of most if not all CDC claims relative to covid. Experts are readily available to oppose EVERY government claim.
Moreover, due to the government’s own manipulation of the data, no accurate fatality figures exist to prove that a COVID pandemic exists.
Without such proofs no legal basis extant for invoking emergency powers and imposing mandates.