Biden turning private business into a ‘type of shadow state’ with ‘coerced’ vaccine approach

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley has warned that President Joe Biden’s attempts to coerce private businesses into forcing vaccinate mandates on their employees is turning them into his personal “shadow state.”

The president could just issue a nationwide vaccine mandate, but he realizes doing so would make him look like a dictator. And so instead he’s accomplishing virtually the same thing by using private businesses as proxies.

Turley explained this during an appearance Wednesday on Fox Business Network’s “Your World.”

“The Biden administration is all-in on a type of coerced consent approach. What that involves is getting private companies to make life as difficult as possible for people who are not convinced,” he said.

“This is all to force people that are against getting vaccines into sort of a smaller and smaller point of existence. A very difficult space. But it also means that private companies become a type of shadow state. They become the vehicle by which the government can do indirectly what it’s not doing directly,” he added.

Listen:

He made the remarks right after the Department of Justice publicly unveiled an opinion permitting public agencies and private businesses to impose a vaccine mandate on their employees.

“[W]e conclude that section 564 of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements, even when the only vaccines available are those authorized under [Emergency Use Authorizations],” the opinion states.

According to Turley, this “shadow state” phenomenon isn’t limited to just vaccine mandates.

In a column published earlier this month, he noted that the White House is “openly calling for greater corporate action to address censorship, health care, and other issues.”

Regarding censorship, for instance, he wrote, “The government cannot implement a censorship system under the Constitution — but it can outsource censorship functions to private companies like Facebook and Twitter.”

The column was published the same week that White House press secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the administration was flagging so-called COVID “misinformation” for Facebook to censor.

This essentially means, according to Turley, that the “public is now required to discuss public controversies within the lines and limits set by corporate censors — with the guidance of the government.”

Case in point: The Hunter Biden story and the lab leak theory.

“Twitter barred reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 election. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform may discuss the origins of COVID-19, after previously censoring such discussion — but it still bars opposing views on vaccinations and the pandemic,” Turley noted.

This executive power through proxy, he warned, poses “a rising threat to the democratic process.”

“If these trends continue, citizens could find themselves effectively exiled by order of corporate governors — unable to travel or go to school while also barred from espousing dissenting views on social media,” he wrote.

“They would, effectively, be ‘disappeared’ within a shadow state that lacks any electoral or appellate process — a dystopian brave new world that could become all too real if we allow elected officials to use corporate surrogates to control the essential aspects of our lives,” he added.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are busy trying to do the same, albeit through legislation, not executive fiat.

“Democratic senators introduced a bill on Thursday that would hold Facebook, YouTube and other social media companies responsible for the proliferation of falsehoods about vaccines, fake cures and other harmful health-related claims on their sites,” NPR reported last week.

“Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases.”

The question though is who defines what’s true and what’s false? The preferred answer by the likes of Biden and Klobucher is them and their “experts.”

The only problem is they and their “experts” have been wrong about virtually everything. But if they were in control of the flow of information, it wouldn’t even matter, because they — and only they — would be able to control the “narrative.”

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles