…
…
https://alethonews.com/2021/09/17/why-the-biden-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-is-unconstitutional/
Techno Fog | September 14, 2021
On September 9, President Biden announced he would circumvent the democratic process, ordering the Secretary of the Department of Labor to require employers with over 100 workers to “ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”
This was essential, as Biden said, “to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”
As we have explained, the Secretary of Labor will issue these regulations through OSHA by way of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The ETS would allow the Secretary of Labor to issue the vaccine mandate without the normal administrative rulemaking requirements (like notice and public comment periods).
While the Biden Administration tells the public that there’s no time to waste in issuing the mandate, the truth is that OSHA/Labor failed to argue the necessity of a vaccine mandate since the vaccines have been available – a time period approaching one year. Moreover, the Biden Department of Labor is secretly meeting with the US Chamber of Commerce and business lobbyists to gather support for the mandate. As Bloomberg Law reports:
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda held a virtual meeting with Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, and other business lobbyists. The Chamber, the largest business lobbying group in the U.S., has yet to publicly declare a position on the coming Occupational Safety and Health Administration emergency rulemaking.
It was one of at least three briefings the department held Friday for labor union leaders and employer associations—constituencies the White House hopes to forge partnerships with to lift the vaccination rate nationwide. Information from the calls was disclosed to Bloomberg Law by eight sources who took part, all of whom requested anonymity because they didn’t have approval to speak publicly.
Why the Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional
As you can imagine, the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate will be litigated as soon as OSHA issues the rules. The media is running interference, telling the public that challenges to the mandate are “unlikely to succeed.”
Do not believe them.
The legality of the vaccine mandate will be assessed under what is called the major rules doctrine (also known as the major questions doctrine). Under this doctrine, the courts look to (1) whether the agency action is a major rule; and (2) whether Congress has clearly authorized the agency action.
As Justice Scalia stated in 2014, “We expect congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
From here we turn to the first question of the major rules doctrine: there is zero doubt that it is a major rule. It would affect the healthcare decisions – and implicate the personal autonomy – of “some 80 million private sector workers.” It is an action never before taken by OSHA, the Department of Labor, and any other federal agency. It would affect the entire US economy.
In support of my position, we have seen lesser invasive agency rules be determined to be major rules. For example, “rate-regulations” of telephone companies has been held to be a major rule. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994).
From there we get to the second question: whether Congress has clearly authorized the Department of Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines. The answer is no.
If Congress clearly authorized (not just authorized, but clearly authorized) Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines, then we would have seen such authority in the OSH Act of 1970. Look for yourself – the language isn’t there. Instead, there are general grants of authority to “set mandatory occupational safety and health standards.”
Looking to the history of OSHA, this authority has been understood to regulate employer actions to provide a safe workplace (Benzene limits) or employee actions at work (operation of heavy equipment). The OSH Act has never been understood historically to include mandatory vaccinations. This is significant because the Supreme Court recently looked to agency history to determine the CDC lacked the authority to issue its latest eviction mandate.
For an example of “clear authority” relating to public health, look to the authority Congress gave HHS to take action in case of “significant outbreaks of infectious diseases.” Going further, to allow the mandate would be to allow OSHA to require vaccination as a condition of employment. The OSH Act contains no such language or authority.
So there we have it. This is a “major rule” and Congress has not “clearly authorized” Labor/OSHA to issue a vaccine mandate. It is an unlawful – and unconstitutional – seizure of authority by the Executive. Expect further challenges on whether the ETS itself (and the finding of “grave danger”) is legal.
We also observe that we by no means concede Congressional authority to mandate vaccines. (In other words, Congress could not give OSHA/Labor this authority because Congress has no such authority to give.) You may have seen some pundits argue that the 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts gives this authority. These arguments are misplaced, as that was the Supreme Court over 100 years ago considering state, and not federal, authority.
One Final Point – Why Justice Kavanaugh Matters
In 2017, when Justice Kavanaugh was sitting on the DC Circuit, he wrote a dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, in which he thoroughly summarized the major rules doctrine. He argued that the FCC’s net neutrality rule was unlawful, in that it was a “major rule” that was not clearly authorized by Congress.
Kavanaugh’s 2017 dissent was one of the most (or perhaps the most) comprehensive discussions of the major rules doctrine ever written in the DC Circuit. Kavanaugh went through a number of Supreme Court cases in support of his position and argued the doctrine essential to uphold the separation of powers. To this author, it reveals Kavanaugh values this doctrine and believes it should be applied with vigor.
We see an example of this in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the original application to vacate the stay of the CDC eviction moratorium (June 29, 2021), where Kavanaugh wrote “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium.”
Whether Kavanaugh has the courage to apply his convictions is another matter.
…
…
https://alethonews.com/2021/09/15/new-poll-finds-that-50-of-americans-support-cutting-aid-to-israel/
By Eric Striker | National Justice | September 15, 2021
Aid to Israel is now a highly polarizing issue, a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the pro-Zionist Israel Democracy Institute have found.
The survey taken last month found that the US government’s deferential treatment of Israel is completely out of line and unrepresentative of popular opinion.
On the question of whether to restrict US military aid to Israel, 50% of all Americans support ending such support, compared to 45% who oppose it. Among supporters of aid restrictions are 32% of registered Republicans, 62% of Democrats, and 52% of Independents. This is a drastic rise from historical opinion polls for all political persuasions right, left and center.
In respects to the Israel-Palestine conflict itself, only 32% of Americans believe the US government should be getting involved on Israel’s side.
A glaring distinction is made clear when both the US and the Jewish Israeli public were asked about potential solutions to the dispute. Last July, it was found that 56% of Americans and 69% of Israel’s Arab minority support a two state solution, which would allow the West Bank and Gaza to become an independent Palestinian state. Only 34% of Jews in Israel support this view.
Even more telling were the answers on a potential one state solution. A one state solution would incorporate Gaza and the West Bank and transform Israel into an American or European style multi-racial democracy where Arabs in occupied territories would enjoy equal rights to Jews. Even higher numbers of Americans (60%) support this resolution, as well as 56% of Israeli Arabs. Meanwhile, only a paltry 14% of Israeli Jews would even consider such an idea.
The only opinion Israeli Jews responded favorably to was to maintain the status quo (42%) in the conflict, which means the slow and illegal expansion of their regime as they ethnically cleanse and kill Palestinians. This view was only shared by 26% of Americans and 15% of Israeli Arabs.
It is not controversial to say that global Jewry is by far the most vocal and powerful advocate for racial pluralism, mass immigration, and multi-culturalism in the West. Yet, in the Jewish state, the idea of a “rainbow nation” is rejected by a super-majority, who are so inflexible that they do not even want Palestinians to have even the most sensible demand of an independent nation composed of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
As this poll run by the Israel lobby shows, Zionism in the United States is rapidly losing ground among popular opinion. This has yet to make any significant mark on Washington consensus, where both Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly shown that American aid to Israel is unconditional.
https://diannemarshallreport.com/mayor-says-resign-its-porn/
Ohio Mayor tells school board members to resign or ‘be charged’ after a judge confirmed that their high school college-credit course was ‘child pornography’! Hats off to Mayor Craig Shubert of Hudson, Ohio, for taking action against the members of the city’s board of education! “It has come to my attention that your educators are…
…
An internal review of research by Associate Professor
Wan-Quan Liu – who has since resigned and now works at a university in
China – found he breached several ethical codes including a failure to
obtain informed consent and approval.
The study, first reported by Four Corners in 2019,
was partly funded by the Chinese government and was criticised by human
rights campaigners who were worried it could be misused by authorities
to persecute Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
…
…
“Ever-rising housing prices relative to income, I don’t think serves our collective good very well, it’s something that as a citizen I would like to see addressed, but as a central bank we can’t
do anything about,” he said…
…”While monetary policy is contributing to higher housing prices at the moment, the way to address these concerns is through the structural factors that influence the value of the land upon which our dwellings are built.”
…
…
…
https://vikinglifeblog.wordpress.com/2021/09/14/a-message-to-white-military/
…
Do you serve your countrymen? Do you serve your family back home? Do you serve your people by protecting the American value of a God-given right to hormone replacement therapy for your children? What about the American value of the right to pursue record-breaking profits for big business, while your brothers are granted the privilege to live paycheck to paycheck in the service of their economic overlords?
It’s time to stop serving this anti-White system. Resist the unconstitutional orders. Speak up about the injustices against our people. If you have no other option, resign before it is too late. Please, for the good of yourself and your people, do not continue on this path.
https://theinjustice.blog/2021/02/18/goodbye-deliveroo-sincerely-toilet-man/
…
Hi, I’m Toilet Man.
For the past two months, I have been taking a stand against restaurants and takeaways who violate health and safety law. Specifically, Regulations 20 & 21 of the Workplace (Health and Safety) Regulations 1992, which stipulates that restaurants who provide a delivery service must provide access to toilet facilities, cold water and soap to any delivery courier who conducts any work for them. However, despite a joint letter by the Chief Executive of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport reiterating the legal requirement and even stipulating further that due to COVID-19, the regulations are even more important, restaurants have continued to violate the regulations. This is despite reminders from Deliveroo (who claim to have sent reminders to restaurants).
This has led to stories – obviously by the Sun about a‘grotty Uber Eats driver’ taking a poo outside and another recent story about a ‘Deliverpoo driver’ taking a poo at the side of a business.
Well, if restaurants are failing to abide by the rules; the Health and Safety Executive isn’t enforcing the rules; Deliveroo and Uber Eats and Just Eat appear to take no enforcement action… as the saying goes “if you got-to go, you got-to go”
As somebody with a genuine medical condition that may require the use of a toilet at any time and being a holder of a bowel & bladder society card and radar key, working for Deliveroo for the past nine months has been a serious challenge for me.
Eventually, I had enough of being denied access to the toilet, with scrupulous restaurants claiming that because of COVID, they’re not allowing anybody in. Yet, they’re happy to accept the services of delivery couriers and benefit from the only business that they’re able to undertake.
I started to take video recordings of restaurants who deny me access to the toilet. In fact, in most of these videos, I don’t actually need the toilet at all, it’s after hearing of somebody else being refused access that I go in to intervene.
…
