Joe Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Blatantly Unconstitutional

In one of the most overtly authoritarian orders imposed by a president in decades, Joe Biden issued a sweeping series of vaccine mandates on September 9, a move that could affect as many 100 million Americans. Under Biden’s rules, federal employees, employees of federal contractors, and Americans employed by a health-care facility receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding will all be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or submit a COVID-19 test each week.

Even more troubling, Biden’s order requires that all employees of private businesses with 100 workers or more must also comply with the vaccine mandate, regardless of the quality of existing safety measures, vaccination rates, or the proportion of the workforce that has obtained natural immunity. Businesses that refuse to comply with the new order will be fined $14,000 per violation, which means some larger businesses could theoretically be fined millions of dollars in just one week for failing to fulfill the terms of Biden’s order.

These demands issued by Biden, who had promised he would not mandate vaccines, are nothing short of an authoritarian power grab by a floundering president whose short time in office has been marred by one failure after another. The fact is, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest the Constitution provides the executive branch with the power to issue a national vaccine mandate, and no amount of fear-mongering will ever change that.

The Constitution lays out the powers granted to Congress and the president in Articles 1 and 2, and in neither section does the text indicate that regulating public health is a responsibility of the federal government.

Article 1, Section 8 does indicate Congress has the authority “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” but even in an extremely broad reading, this passage can only reasonably be interpreted to give Congress the power to tax and spend money on programs meant to benefit the nation, such as an interstate highway. The text here says nothing about giving Congress the power to restrict personal health choices.

Some have tried to claim that the Supreme Court has already determined that a vaccine mandate like the one issued by Biden is legal, but that is also completely false. The court decision that is nearly always cited as proof of this claim is a case from the early twentieth century called Jacobson v. MassachusettsIn that case, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that allowed local governments to impose vaccine mandates on their populations. Those who failed to comply with the mandate could be fined $5.

In Jacobson, the Supreme Court ruled, “The authority of the State to enact this statute [a vaccine mandate] is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power — a power which the State did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and ‘health laws of every description;’ indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not, by their necessary operation, affect the people of other States.”

Notice that the Supreme Court in Jacobson is only examining a state’s authority to issue or permit vaccine rules and other public health mandates, not the federal government. This is a vital point, because the legality of Biden’s vaccine mandate hinges on the powers given to the federal government, not to state and local governments.

The Founding Fathers believed public health regulations, like most other policies, ought to be crafted at the state and local levels, a view clearly articulated in the 10th Amendment, which declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Because Articles 1 and 2 do not indicate that regulating vaccines or public health is a power invested in the federal government, the right to make such rules is “reserved to the States … or to the people.”

When confronted with these arguments, the Biden administration has insisted it has the power under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to force medium and large private employers to enact a vaccine mandate on the government’s behalf.

It is true that the act, which established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), includes maddeningly vague language about the federal government’s responsibilities under the law. But however vaguely defined OSHA’s powers are, they cannot ever be interpreted to supersede the Constitution, which remains, contrary to the actions of President Biden, the supreme law of the United States.

Because all federal statutes must be interpreted within the bounds of the Constitution, and because the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate public health issues like vaccines, instead reserving it for states and citizens, there is no legal basis for the claim that the Occupational Safety and Health Act grants President Biden the right to coerce people into getting vaccinated.

There’s a reason no president in American history has ever issued a national vaccine mandate like the one imposed by the Biden administration: it is apparent that such a rule is a clear violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment provision, as well as a proper reading of Articles 1 and 2. Unfortunately, Biden doesn’t seem to care about upholding his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s much more important for him to shift the focus away from his administration’s horrendous performance, no matter the cost.





Source link

Biden’s dad worked for corrupt union that got federal funds: book

A new book says President Biden’s father got a job in the 1980s at a scandal-plagued union group that continued to collect federal funds despite concern among officials in DC about financial irregularities.

Joe Biden Sr.’s role with the Council for Labor and Industry (CLI) in Philadelphia is not widely known and may represent an early instance of the Biden family cashing in on the senator-turned-president’s power — preceding examples involving first son Hunter Biden and the president’s brother Jim Biden.

The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” by Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, hits shelves Tuesday and includes an account of the elder Biden’s late-career transition in the 1970s from used car salesman to real estate agent.

Biden Sr. at first found success selling properties in Delaware, but when the early-’80s recession and housing slump hit, “he landed a client with less exposure to market forces,” according to an excerpt of the book shared with The Post.

The CLI was a quasi-governmental organization run by union members with public financing, ostensibly to promote employment. The organization and its members were dogged by accusations of illegal behavior.

Biden Sr. is believed to have worked with the group for at least 4 1/2 years — during which time the US Commerce Department’s inspector’s general office in 1985 alleged misconduct and recommended a cessation of federal funding, the book says.

Ben Schreckinger’s new book on the Biden family suggests then-Sen. Joe Biden played a role in helping out his father’s crooked union in Philadelphia.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

The funding was not cut off, however. It’s unclear what role if any then-Sen. Biden played in that decision.

The book says “investigators at the US Commerce Department’s Inspector General’s Office discovered financial irregularities and recommended that the department cut off its funding to the council, but they were overruled by superiors.”

Congress has oversight powers and can exercise indirect influence over federal agencies, though the Republican Reagan administration controlled the executive branch at the time.

Later, when CLI collapsed under further scandal, “the US Department of Housing and Urban Development weighed in with a report that faulted the city Commerce Department for failing to keep the council in check.”

Joe Biden with his mother and father Joseph R. Biden Sr. in the 1970's.
Joe Biden with his mother Catherine and father Joseph Sr. in the 1970s.
Biden archives

Biden Sr. placed a series of newspaper ads — signed J.R. Biden — in the Philadelphia Inquirer in December 1981 and January 1982 on behalf of CLI, offering to rent space at a warehouse complex, the book says.

CLI operated the Wissahickon Industrial Center in Philadelphia at the time. In 1981, Philadelphia officials axed CLI’s contract to store city voting machines at the facility because of water leaks and faulty temperature control — apparently explaining the available space on offer by the elder Biden.

Biden, first elected to the US Senate from Delaware in 1972, is a long-time ally to labor unions, including in Pennsylvania. In 1979 he was the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO’s keynote speaker for its annual dinner in Philadelphia.

CLI was originally known as the Council for Revitalization of Employment and Industry in Philadelphia — or CREIP — but was renamed after James Mahoney, a state AFL-CIO official who was treasurer for the CLI, was indicted on tax and mail fraud charges in late 1979. He pleaded guilty to offering contracts to businesses if they did free work on his home.

The rebranded CLI faced many subsequent legal issues. In 1982, the union group owed $500,000 in unpaid city taxes

According to businessman Rich Thoma, who worked with CLI, Biden Sr. was still working at the group’s headquarters in June 1986.

Thoma told Schreckinger that he saw Biden at the office the same day that CLI’s then-executive director James Toomey allegedly attempted to extort him by saying that a dispute over loan terms could be resolved if he gave the organization a stake in his hard disk storage company, called People & Technology. Toomey has since died.

Joseph Robinette Sr. and Catherine E. Finnegan’s burial site at the Brandywine Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington, Delaware.
Joseph Robinette Sr. and Catherine E. Finnegan’s burial site at the Brandywine Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington, Delaware.
Saquan Stimpson – CNP

CLI folded after losing the support of Pennsylvania Democrats.

In 1989, a nonprofit contractor accused the organization of misconduct and state labor secretary Harris Wofford — a future Democratic US senator — called for criminal probes. The city cut off funds.

The White House did not offer comment on this story.

“The Bidens” contains other reporting on the often murky links between Biden and his family’s business ventures, which drew harsh coverage in last year’s presidential campaign — most notably for apparent connections between the then-candidate and his son’s business relationships in Ukraine and China.

Then newly-elected Delaware Senator Joe Biden in Washington DC, on December 13, 1972.
Then newly elected Delaware Sen. Joe Biden in Washington DC, on Dec. 13, 1972.
AP

According to a book excerpt published by The Post, Jim Biden openly boasted about selling influence to his older brother as he and Hunter Biden sought to take over a hedge fund based in New York.

“Don’t worry about investors,” he allegedly told a corporate executive “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden… We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company.”



Source link

‘A Stab In The Back’: France Feels Betrayed, Cancels US Gala After Biden’s New Trilateral Defense Deal

France is so angry over President Joe Biden’s new trilateral defense deal that it cancelled a U.S. gala and said the situation reminded them of something former President Donald Trump would do.

Biden announced a new trilateral partnership with Australia and Britain on Wednesday evening. The initiative, called AUKUS, is dedicated to strengthening America’s alliances and its first order of business is to support Australia’s wish in acquiring nuclear powered submarines.

“This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr. Trump used to do,” French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told France Info radio on Thursday according to Reuters. “It’s a stab in the back. We created a relationship of trust with Australia and that trust has been broken.”

French officials were so frustrated by the snub that they cancelled a gala at their embassy in Washington, D.C., though parts “of the celebration are still ongoing,” CNBC reported.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden “doesn’t think” much about the Trump comparison and dismissed concerns over the American ally being upset.

“The president’s focus is on maintaining and continuing our close relationships with leaders in France, with the United Kingdom, with Australia and to achieving our global objectives – which include security in the Indo-Pacific. That’s what his focuses is and we will continue to work toward a productive, constructive partnership with the French,” she said.

WATCH:

AUKUS effectively ends the multi-year submarine contract that France had going with Australia, according to CNBC. Now, Australia will use the U.S. and Britain instead of French-built nuclear submarines.

France’s contract with Australia was worth at least $50 billion, Business Insider noted.

China is also irritated by the Biden administration’s new partnership and warned the U.S. it needs to drop their “Cold War” frame of mind or risk “hurting their own interests.”

“The international community, including neighbouring countries, have risen to question [Australia’s] commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said according to ABC News. “China will closely monitor the situation.”

Zhao said the move was an example of “extremely irresponsible” double standards, reportedly suggesting the countries “abandon the obsolete cold war zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts and respect regional people’s aspiration and do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability and development.”

The administration has claimed the new partnership is not aimed at any one country. Still, it appears evident that the underlying context surrounds Western allies’ continued pressure against China, as Politico reported earlier Wednesday.

Psaki was pressed on why the administration has not publicly admitted the move is because of China during Thursday’s briefing. She said that the White House’s view is focused on “security in the Indo-Pacific” and was then asked if there’s “another country in the Indo-Pacific that you feel like is a threat.”

“I will let others do their analysis, but from the United States government, our focus is on what steps we can take to increase security in the Indo-Pacific and there’s a range of countries that could pose a threat,” Psaki responded.



Source link

SURPRISE: ABC, NBC Reporters Ask Psaki About Biden’s Health After Coughing Fit

Thursday’s episode of The Psaki Show featured two welcome surprises as NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and then ABC’s Karen Travers asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki about President Biden’s health in light of the fact that Biden repeatedly had to battle a cough to get through his remarks an hour prior about the economy. The questions came after the liberal media spent years insisting President Trump showed severe cognitive and physical declines.

Following some solid questions about Afghanistan, O’Donnell switched gears: “Many of us were in the East Room watching the President. We’ve seen him on many occasions where he has a repeated cough. What is the situation with that cough and is that a concern?”

 

 

Psaki immediately shot back that “[i]t’s not a concern” and “we have a doctor who travels with him — obviously, who checks in if — if it is ever warranted and, certainly that continues to be the case, as it has been since the beginning of his presidency.”

O’Donnell wasn’t taking that for an answer, so she followed up: “Is there an explanation for why he coughs so frequently in situations like that? I’m sure you saw it.”

Psaki says she too saw, but didn’t “think it’s an issue of concern” because “there are a range of reasons why we may need to clear our throat or we may have a little, light cold,” which “presidents, elected officials, reporters, spokespeople can confront.”

Before moving on, Psaki insisted that Biden’s coughing fits are “not an area where we have a medical concern.”

Skip ahead about 30 minutes and Travers asked about it in context of when Biden will get a physical: “Following up on one of the questions from Kelly. Do you have an update on when the President will get a physical?”

Psaki provided an answer that sure wouldn’t slide under Trump, calling it “an understandable question,” though “I don’t have an update.”

“He will get one soon. And when he does, we will make sure you all are aware of it and get the information,” she added.

Elsewhere in the briefing, Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich cited Senate testimony from Army Gen. Scott Miller as a way of calling out more Afghanistan mistruths from Biden (click “expand”):

HEINRICH: And I wanted to get to the hearing on the Hill — 

PSAKI: Yeah.

HEINRICH: — with General Miller. The President told ABC back in August that none of his advisers recommended leaving 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. Gen. Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that that was exactly what he recommended. Was the President’s answer in that interview an honest answer?

PSAKI: First of all, I’m not going to get into details of private advice that the President gets from his national security team or military advisers. What is clear is that the President asked for, welcomed candid, non-sugar-coated advice on Afghanistan and what we should do given what we walked into, which was a deal struck with the Taliban with a May 1 timeline, including release of 5,000 Taliban fighters where we would need to get our U.S. Forces out otherwise we would face conflict. That’s what he was facing. In terms of the mechanisms of who providedwhat advice through what forum, I’m just not going to get into that level of detail from here.

HEINRICH: Did the President adhere specifically to the recommendation from the commander on the ground be Afghanistan that he feared that a full withdrawal would be devastating and should not happen?

PSAKI: He was provided a range of advice. I’m not going to get into more details than that. But what’s important to note at this point so it’s crystal clear that 2,500 troops would not have been sustainable on the ground. It would have been either increased troops on the ground or withdraw troops on the ground. And the President has been clear many times that he was not going to send thousands and thousands more troops to fight a war the Afghans did not want to fight themselves.

Moments later, Newsmax’s Emerald Robinson received a rare opportunity to question Psaki (who’s clearly not a fan of her) and, after pressing her on two FDA resignations last month, the White House reporter said the Biden administration “is cutting” the supply of monoclonal antibodies “in red states by 50 percent.”

After arguing the treatments can be used for anyone who’s contracted COVID (vaccinated or unvaccinated), Psaki hit back by saying her claims were “not accurate.”

Psaki did point out that while “monoclonal antibodies are lifesaving therapies that are used after infection to prevent more severe outcome,” the best way to ward off against even needing them is to be vaccinated in the first place.

However, Psaki then talked about the need for “equitable” distribution of resources, so Robinson interjected (click “expand”):

PSAKI: But over the last month, given the rise in cases due to the Delta variant, and the lower number of vaccination rates in some of these states like Florida, like Texas, just seven states are making up 70 percent of the orders. Our supply is not unlimited. And we believe it should be equitable across states —

[INAUDIBLE ROBINSON]

PSAKI: — across the country. Do you —

ROBINSON: There’s been no reports of a — of a lack of supply, so why cut them to those states only if there’s no reports of —

PSAKI: I think our role as the — as the government overseeing the entire country, is to be equitable in how we distribute. We’re not going to give a greater percentage Florida over Oklahoma, nor do I think you are suggesting that. I think we have to move on.

To see the relevant briefing transcript from September 16, click “expand.”

White House press briefing (via CBSN)
September 16, 2021
2:59 p.m. Eastern

KELLY O’DONNELL: One very different, separate subject. Many of us were in the East Room watching the President. We’ve seen him on many occasions where he has a repeated cough. What is the situation with that cough and is that a concern?

JEN PSAKI: It’s not a concern. We have a doctor who travels with him — obviously, who checks in if — if it is ever warranted and, certainly that continues to be the case, as it has been since the beginning of his presidency.

O’DONNELL: Is there an explanation for why he coughs so frequently in situations like that? I’m sure you saw it.

PSAKI: I did. I don’t think it’s an issue of concern. I think there are a range of reasons why we may need to clear our throat or we may have a little, light cold. And that’s certainly something that presidents, elected officials, reporters, spokespeople can confront, but it’s not an area where we have a medical concern.

(….)

3:18 p.m. Eastern

JACQUI HEINRICH: And I wanted to get to the hearing on the Hill — 

PSAKI: Yeah.

HEINRICH: — with General Miller. The President told ABC back in August that none of his advisers recommended leaving 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. Gen. Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that that was exactly what he recommended. Was the President’s answer in that interview an honest answer?

PSAKI: First of all, I’m not going to get into details of private advice that the President gets from his national security team or military advisers. What is clear is that the President asked for, welcomed candid, non-sugar-coated advice on Afghanistan and what we should do given what we walked into, which was a deal struck with the Taliban with a May 1 timeline, including release of 5,000 Taliban fighters where we would need to get our U.S. Forces out otherwise we would face conflict. That’s what he was facing. In terms of the mechanisms of who providedwhat advice through what forum, I’m just not going to get into that level of detail from here.

HEINRICH: Did the President adhere specifically to the recommendation from the commander on the ground be Afghanistan that he feared that a full withdrawal would be devastating and should not happen?

PSAKI: He was provided a range of advice. I’m not going to get into more details than that. But what’s important to note at this point so it’s crystal clear that 2,500 troops would not have been sustainable on the ground. It would have been either increased troops on the ground or withdraw troops on the ground. And the President has been clear many times that he was not going to send thousands and thousands more troops to fight a war the Afghans did not want to fight themselves.

(….)

3:22 p.m. Eastern

ROBINSON: I do have another question about the President’s —

PSAKI: Mmhmm.

ROBINSON: — Covid plan. He promised on September 9 that he was going to send 50 percent more supply of monoclonal antibodies to states. Yet, the Biden administration is cutting supplies in red states by 50 percent. So, for example, you know, in Florida, they were expecting to get 70,000 doses this week, which they say they need. They’re only getting 30,000 doses. And this is not just for unvaccinated people. In South Florida, half the people who were seeking this treatment are fully vaccinated. So, why is the Biden administration cutting these supplies?

PSAKI: That’s not accurate. So, let me give you the accurate information. First of all, we are increasing our distribution this month by 50 percent. In early August, we were distributing an average of 100,000 doses per week. Now, we’re shipping an average of 150,000 doses per week, Over the last month, though — and one thing that I think people need to understand for clarity, I know — I know you’re — like facts, is that monoclonal antibodies are lifesaving therapies that are used after infection to prevent more severe outcome. So, clearly, the way to protect people and save more lives is get them vaccinated so that they don’t get — the Covid to begin with. But over the last month, given the rise in cases due to the Delta variant, and the lower number of vaccination rates in some of these states like Florida, like Texas, just seven states are making up 70 percent of the orders. Our supply is not unlimited. And we believe it should be equitable across states —

[INAUDIBLE ROBINSON]

PSAKI: — across the country. Do you —

ROBINSON: There’s been no reports of a — of a lack of supply, so why cut them to those states only if there’s no reports of —

PSAKI: I think our role as the — as the government overseeing the entire country, is to be equitable in how we distribute. We’re not going to give a greater percentage Florida over Oklahoma, nor do I think you are suggesting that. I think we have to move on.

(….)

3:29 p.m. Eastern

KAREN TRAVERS: Following up on one of the questions from Kelly. Do you have an update on when the President will get a physical?”

PSAKI: I — I know this is an understandable question. I don’t have an update. He will get one soon. And when he does, we will make sure you all are aware of it and get the information.





Source link

Biden’s coughing questioned during White House briefing

It’s nothing to sneeze at.

President Biden’s persistent coughing and clearing his throat while addressing the public sparked questions at the White House briefing on Thursday about the health of the president — after he paused several times to clear his throat during his speech on tax hikes minutes earlier.

“Many of us were in the East Room watching the president, we’ve seen him on many occasions where he had a repeated cough. What is the situation with that cough and is it a concern?” asked NBC News’ Kelly O’Donnell. 

“It’s not a concern,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

“We have a doctor who travels with him, obviously who checks in if it is ever warranted, and certainly that continues to be the case, as it has been since the beginning of his presidency,” she added.

“Is there an explanation for why he coughs so frequently in situations like that?” O’Donnell pressed.

President Joe Biden pauses to cough during remarks on the economy in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on Sept. 16.
EPA

“I don’t think it’s an issue of concern. I think there are a range of reasons why we may need to clear our throat or we may have a little light cold, and that’s certainly something that presidents, elected officials, reporters, spokespeople can confront,” Psaki responded, ignoring the frequency with which Biden’s public comments have been interrupted by his phlegmy delivery. 

Later in the briefing, Psaki was asked when Biden would get a physical examination.

“I know this is an understandable question. I don’t have an update. He will get one soon. And when he does, we will make sure you all are aware of it and get the information,” she said.

Biden, 78, often stops during speeches or public remarks to clear his throat.

It’s become so common that the hashtag #Bidencough exists on social media. 

“Biden coughing, gagging and phlegm gurgling is making me ill. Every television speech full of this. Give the man water PLEASE,” one user wrote on Twitter after the president’s East Room speech.

Biden
U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the economy during a speech in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., on Sept. 16.
REUTERS

After he coughed and was hoarse while speaking in December after the Electoral College confirmed his victory in the 2020 election, aides said he was suffering from a slight cold. 

More recently, the president hacked at several points during a speech Monday in California in support of Gov. Gavin Newsom in the recall election, causing him to apologize and even pause to take a sip of water. 

During the presidential campaign, his doctor, Kevin O’Connor, told the Wall Street Journal that Biden is fit to serve as president, but also noted that he is being treated for high cholesterol, acid reflux disease and seasonal allergies.

Acid reflux often forces him to clear his throat, O’Connor said.

“This may also contribute to occasional cough and sinus congestion,” O’Connor wrote in a medical statement. “He has received endoscopy to rule out any more significant disease.”





Source link

Biden’s repeated coughs are not a concern, Psaki says

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday sought to reassure Americans after President Biden coughed repeatedly at three public events this week.

“I don’t think it’s an issue of concern,” she said.

Mr. Biden coughed frequently — at one point stopping to apologize for coughing — during a White House speech Thursday to call for increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

He also coughed repeatedly during remarks at the White House on Wednesday and during a campaign rally Monday for California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

When asked about the coughing, Ms. Psaki insisted it wasn’t an issue. She said there could be several reasons why the president needed to clear his throat, including having a little cold.

“We have a doctor who travels with him, obviously, who checks in if it is ever warranted, and certainly that continues to be the case, as it has been since the beginning of his presidency,” she said.

When pressed for explanation after it was noted that the president has been coughing since the beginning of his term, Ms. Psaki insisted it’s not a reason to worry.

He may have a little light cold,” she said. “That’s certainly something that presidents, elected officials, that reporters or spokespeople can confront. But it’s not a medical concern.”

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

 





Source link

Ben Shapiro: Daily Wire ‘staffing up’ to ‘defy’ Biden’s ‘tyrannical’ vax mandate in court

(LifeSiteNews) — Conservative media outlet The Daily Wire has no intention of complying with the Biden administration’s impending mandate that businesses with more than 100 employees require them to take the COVID-19 vaccines, with conservative pundit Ben Shapiro confirming that the organization is “staffing up” to fight the “tyrannical and authoritarian order” in court.

On September 9, President Joe Biden announced that he was directing the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to draft a rule that will, according to the White House, “require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work.” 

Biden also announced new vaccination rules for federal employees and government contractors, but the bulk of the controversy focused on the administration’s intrusion into the decisions of private-sector employers and employees, which is expected to affect more than 80 million Americans.

The Daily Wire, which Shapiro co-founded with Jeremy Boreing in 2015, promptly responded to the news with an announcement that it “does have more than 100 employees,” but will “use every tool at our disposal including legal action to resist.”

The next day, Shapiro appeared on Fox & Friends to elaborate on the company’s position.

“We’re going to use every method and resource at our disposal to defy the president’s unconstitutional order,” Shapiro reiterated. “And this is coming from somebody who’s very pro-vaccine. I was vaccinated as soon as possible; I’ve encouraged everybody to get the vaccine, or pretty much everybody to get the vaccine.”

However, he continued, “the notion that the federal government has the ability to force every business in America with over 100 employees — by the way, I’m not sure why it’s over 100 employees, theoretically, it should be every business in America because you can get infected anywhere — every business in America with over 100 employees to either force its employees to vaccinate or force them to test every week or fire them presumably.”

“We are staffing up right now on the legal side,” Shapiro went on. “We are already getting any lawsuit ready that needs to be gotten ready. We have to see the actual regulations, know the details of that lawsuit. What we can tell you is that the provisions that Joe Biden is going to be citing under OSHA are wildly overbroad.”

Calling Biden a “failed president on every level,” Shapiro suggested the 78-year-old Democrat was “attempting to redirect all of the ire at his presidency at your fellow Americans,” particularly the unvaccinated, and that the mandate was another indicator that Biden had failed in his early promise that “I’m not going to shut down the economy; I’m not going to shut down the country; I’m going to shut down the virus.” 

Shapiro further predicted that this mandate may have the unintended effect of provoking the U.S. Supreme Court into a “complete rewriting of the administrative state because Joe Biden couldn’t get his act in order, and so he decided to issue a tyrannical and authoritarian order here.” 

The Biden administration’s promotion of COVID-19 vaccination has grown steadily more aggressive, previously announcing it intended to send representatives door to door to urge Americans to do so. At the same time, critics say the White House has undermined vaccine confidence with its refusal to disclose how many of its own staffers contracted COVID-19 after vaccination, as well as the president’s recent false claim that “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Many Americans remain concerned that the vaccines have not been sufficiently studied for negative effects given their accelerated clinical trials.

Vaccine defenders note that the one-year development period was not starting from scratch, but rather relied on years of prior research into mRNA technology; and that one of the innovations of the Trump administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” was conducting various aspects of the development process concurrently rather than sequentially, eliminating delays unrelated to safety. However, those factors do not fully account for the condensing of clinical trial phases — each of which can take anywhere from 1–3 years on their own — to just three months apiece. 

— Article continues below Petition —

1069693 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 1100000!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

People of goodwill can disagree about the safety, efficacy and religious implications of a new vaccine for the coronavirus.

But, everyone should agree on this point:

No government can force anyone who has reached legal adulthood to be vaccinated for the coronavirus. Equally, no government can vaccinate minors for the coronavirus against the will of their parents or guardians.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which urges policymakers at every level of government to reject calls for mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

Fear of a disease – which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases – must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms. 

The so-called “public health experts” have gotten it wrong many times during the current crisis. We should not, therefore, allow their opinions to rush decision-makers into policies regarding vaccination.

And, while some people, like Bill Gates, may have a lot of money, his opinion and that of his NGO (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) – namely, that life will not return to normal till people are widely vaccinated – should not be permitted to influence policy decisions on a coronavirus vaccination program.

Finally, we must also not allow the rush by pharmaceutical companies to produce a new coronavirus vaccine to, itself, become an imperative for vaccination.

Unwitting citizens must not be used as guinea pigs for New World Order ideologues, or Big Pharma, in pursuit of a vaccine (and, profits) which may not even protect against future mutated strains of the coronavirus.

And it goes without saying that the production of vaccines using aborted babies for cell replication is a total non-starter, as the technique is gravely immoral.

However, if after sufficient study of the issue, a person who has reached the age of majority wishes to be vaccinated with a morally produced vaccine, along with his children, that is his business.

But we cannot and will not permit the government to make that decision for us.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition, urging policymakers at all levels of government to reject mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population ‘widely vaccinated’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bill-gates-life-wont-go-back-to-normal-until-population-widely-vaccinated

COVID-19 scare leads to more digital surveillance, talk of mandatory vaccine ‘tattoos’ for kids’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-19-scare-leads-to-more-digital-surveillance-talk-of-mandatory-vaccine-tattoos-for-kids

Trudeau says no return to ‘normal’ without vaccine: ‘Could take 12 to 18 months’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-says-no-return-to-normal-without-vaccine-could-take-12-to-18-months

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-mulls-making-coronavirus-vaccine-mandatory-for-canadians

US bishop vows to ‘refuse’ COVID-19 vaccine if made from ‘aborted fetal tissue’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-bishop-vows-to-refuse-covid-19-vaccine-if-made-from-aborted-fetal-tissue

** While LifeSite opposes immorally-produced vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, we do not have a position on any particular coronavirus vaccines produced without such moral problems. We realize many have general concerns about vaccines, but also recognize that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines.

*** Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

While cases of severe harm reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) after taking COVID vaccines represent less than one percent of total doses administered in the United States, a 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.”

This past May, NBC News published a report acknowledging experts’ concerns about “gaps” in federal monitoring of the COVID vaccines. While the government currently relies on a “hodgepodge” of sources for safety data, the report explained, the quoted experts call for a more “robust ‘active’ surveillance system [that] can search large volumes of patient care records to compare rates of adverse events in people who received vaccines with those who didn’t.”

Beyond the question of safety, some harbor ethical reservations about the use of cells from aborted babies in the COVID vaccines’ development. Still other simply consider them unnecessary given COVID-19’s high survivability among most groups, low risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicating that post-infection natural immunity is actually more protective against reinfection.

So far, more than twenty Republican-controlled states have said they are planning or exploring lawsuits against the Biden vaccine mandate. LifeSiteNews has also prepared a resource to help readers facing such mandates at work pursue and defend religious, medical, or conscience exemptions.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 





Source link

The $700 Billion Gimmick at the Center of Biden’s Tax Plan – Reason.com

Central to President Joe Biden’s plan to hike federal spending by $3.5 trillion is a promise that middle-class Americans won’t face a tax increase.

That’s a claim that is looking less and less true with each passing day. The bill Congress is drafting to pay for all that new spending includes tax hikes on tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, and cryptocurrencies—taxes that will apply to the rich and poor alike. And while the bill does not raise income taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000 annually in the immediate future, Americans earning as little as $30,000 could face a tax hike by 2027 under Biden’s plan, according to an analysis published Tuesday by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a nonpartisan number-crunching agency housed inside Congress.

The culprit for that future tax increase is the expanded child tax credit, which the House tax plan would extend through 2025 (the JCT’s report only provides estimates for every other year, so 2027 is the first child tax credit–less year included in its analysis). More accurately, the culprit is Congress’ unwillingness to address the full cost of that tax credit in this bill. By promising to raise taxes later, Democrats are able to manufacture about $700 billion in “savings” that will likely never materialize.

Let’s back up a little. The new JCT report shows that taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually would see a net tax cut in 2023 under the changes that the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled earlier this week. The House Democrats’ plan would shift the tax burden toward wealthier Americans next year, largely because of how Biden’s proposal relies on hiking income tax rates for high earners and raising the capital gains tax rate, which is applied to investment earnings.

Skip ahead to 2027, however, and things look quite a bit different. By then, the changes House Democrats are now proposing would result in higher taxes for nearly all taxpayers—even those making as little as $30,000 per year. Middle-class Americans earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would owe, on average, several hundred dollars in additional taxes, according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s breakdown of the JCT’s analysis.

That sudden shift in the tax burden is caused by the expiration of the newly expanded child tax credit. As part of the COVID-19 relief bill passed in March, Congress approved a one-year increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 per child annually to $3,600 per child under the age of 6 and $3,000 for those ages 6 to 17—delivered as monthly payments of $300 per child under age 6 and $250 for older kids. In the reconciliation bill, Democrats are proposing to maintain the expanded tax credit through 2025.

Why 2025? Because the tax credit—which isn’t really a tax credit at all, but rather a direct subsidy since it is paid out even if recipients have no income and owe no federal taxes—is expensive. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the child tax credit will cost about $110 billion annually, and extending the tax credit through 2025 will cost $450 billion. Making it permanent would cost $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Those amounts could make a big difference in the ultimate fate of Biden’s plan. Democrats need to use the reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster in the Senate, but the rules governing the reconciliation process forbid legislation that expands the federal budget deficit over the next decade. That means every dollar of new spending has to be offset somehow. And $1.1 trillion is a lot more than $450 billion.

Most Democrats would probably love to extend the expanded child tax credit permanently. At least a few Republicans would probably agree to that too. But by setting the expanded tax credit to expire four years from now, Democrats are able to ignore roughly $700 billion in future costs that have to be offset in order to use the reconciliation process.

“Democrats have no intention of taking away the child credit expansion after 2025—it is both popular and central to their poverty-reduction strategy,” says Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and former Senate Republican staffer. “But sunsetting the policy after 2025 in this bill provides $700 billion in fake savings over the decade, as future Congresses will surely extend the policy.”

In other words, it’s a gimmick. A gimmick that, yes, Republicans have also used when trying to route major tax policy changes through the reconciliation system, but a gimmick nonetheless.

As a result of that gimmick, the JCT’s estimates for fiscal year 2027 do not include the child tax credit. And that’s why it looks like taxes will go up for a lot of middle-income families a few years from now.

This sets up a clever game. Democrats will be able to wave away objections about those future tax increases because of course Congress will extend the child tax credit beyond 2025…eventually. But they don’t have to account for the future cost of that inevitable extension in the bill they want to pass within the next few weeks.

Compared to what experts say are the other likely long-term consequences of passing this $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill—including slower economic growth, more debt, and lower wages—the gimmickry involved in gaming the reconciliation process over the child tax credit is relatively small potatoes. But make no mistake: The child tax credit is adding to the future size of government, even if that amount doesn’t show up on a balance sheet past 2025 yet.

These cynical maneuvers are one of the main reasons why it is so hard for Congress to get its hands around America’s long-term debt problem. Lawmakers are quite literally crafting legislation not in pursuit of the best policy, but in order to avoid the very barriers that have been put in place, within the reconciliation process, to limit deficit spending.

Gaming the system is no way to produce the best outcomes—and that’s especially true for today’s kids, ostensibly the beneficiaries of this policy, who are going to have to pay for it in the long run.



Source link

Crunch time for Biden’s booster plan as key health panels convene

Scientists are divided on whether the general population needs booster shots for their COVID-19 vacations, leaving President Biden‘s push for a third dose in limbo. But now it is crunch time for key federal advisers and agencies, who will render a verdict in the coming days.

Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration are set to convene Friday to discuss Pfizer-BioNTech’s application to provide a third dose to recipients who completed a two-dose course several months ago. The company cited data showing a robust antibody response against infection and disease among recipients in clinical trials.

Experts say there is a good chance the FDA will approve Pfizer’s application, but separate advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will have a say in who gets a third dose when they convene next week.

“It’s important to note that the FDA‘s role is really to say can we use this, can we use this product or can we use this booster? It is the CDC who will decide whether or not they should be used,” Dr. Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told reporters in a midweek COVID-19 briefing.

“So even if FDA comes out and approves the use of boosters by saying they’re safe, and they do what they’re supposed to do, the CDC will still need to review and approve the use of boosters to say that they’re actually needed, and who they are needed for,” she said. “And it may be that they recommend it for different populations — the elderly, for instance, or people in nursing homes, we don’t know.”

The FDA and CDC don’t have to accept their advisory panels’ recommendations, but they generally do.

Mr. Biden wanted to kick-start the booster rollout for the Pfizer and Moderna versions of the vaccine the week of Sept. 20, which is Monday.

That timeline appears to be slipping, with the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices convening at midweek and experts saying they need more time to review Moderna’s data. That means Pfizer likely will be the first to see its booster approved.

The administration is worried about data suggesting immunity wanes after several months, resulting in more breakthrough infections and potential hospitalizations down the road. It pointed to parallel data in Israel, which got an early start on vaccination, and top U.S. health officials a month ago backed a Biden plan to provide boosters to anyone who received a second dose at least eight months ago.

“We really rely on the people who are leading our health and medical agencies,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki. “There is broad agreement about where things stand.”

FDA professionals, the World Health Organization and other experts pushed back, however, saying they haven’t seen data that show the general population needs boosters to stay out of the hospital. They said extra doses should be sent to poor nations that need them.

Papers and studies in recent days offered conflicting views on boosters, deepening the confusion.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that found older Israelis who received a booster were less likely to be infected or experience severe disease. Fewer infections could lessen worry about COVID-19 and break up chains of transmission. But the vaccines were primarily designed to stave off severe disease, so the virus turns into something like a common cold instead of a major problem.

Two departing FDA officials on Monday said available U.S. evidence does not support giving booster shots to the general population. They said even though immunity wanes, the vaccines’ effectiveness “is substantially greater against severe disease than against any infection.”

“Even in populations with fairly high vaccination rates, the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease,” the scientists wrote.

FDA staff declined to take a position on boosters in a document released Wednesday, saying they haven’t been able to review enough data and the shots are still effective at warding off hospitalization and death.

The CDC’s advisory panel may tailor its initial recommendations to health workers, the elderly and the medically frail. Mr. Biden‘s plan would start with those groups, anyway, since they were prioritized in late 2020 and early 2021, and people who received their doses the earliest are supposed to get boosters first.

Ms. Psaki said the administration will be ready to “operationalize” its plan once the ACIP weighs in.

“It’s always been pending the approval of the ACIP and the FDA,” she said. “We’ll see what the ACIP says and then we’ll be able to lay out for you where we go and what that means moving forward.”

Pressed on senior FDA officials who questioned the need for extra shots and decided to leave the agency, Ms. Psaki reiterated the pro-booster consensus among top health officials in the administration, including acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock.

The booster debate is unfolding even as Mr. Biden champions a sweeping plan to require millions of workers to get their first shots.

Roughly 54% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Three-quarters of eligible Americans aged 12 and older have come forward for at least one dose, yet Mr. Biden says the quarter who have resisted are causing damage by allowing the virus to proliferate.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

 





Source link