>>109273

>>109278

Good eve anon

Savin' this batter for after verdict.

"The left fears me"

>>109280

Its always been infiltration, since early 1900s.

Worse now with the commie collusion.

Voters didn't do this, they were trapped, and never realized it until 45.

We will have our country back, and prosper like never before.

>>109276

Anon can imagine they are.

>>109284

>should have been obvious and caused outrage must sooner

Many realized it long ago but there really was no mechanism short of 1776 to fix it.

They locked it down from the start.

Most people don't want to have to go there to fix this, Anon is prepared, but 9/10 people anon knows aren't.

The pussification of America

>>109292

>most peeps don't even know their constitutional rights

Therein lies the problem.

The DUTY of the citizen is to act as a check against government overreach.

When speaking with parents "they don't want to think about it"

Yeah dad that's great I love you, we got this "since you dropped the ball with your head in the sand"...

It is up to those that are awake.

Regardless generation.

Bring back logic

PolitiFact Refuses to Correct Claim that Rittenhouse Illegally Possessed Gun After Judge Dismisses Charge

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/16/politifact-rittenhouse-gun-judge-charge/

The “fact-checking” outlet Politifact is defending its August 2020 claim that Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of an AR-15 was not “perfectly legal,” even though the gun charge against Rittenhouse was dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder.

On August 28, 2020 – just three days after Rittenhouse had used the rifle on the streets of Kenosha – Politifact Wisconsin tweeted, “A Facebook post says, ‘At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.’ That’s False.”

The tweet linked to a PolitiFact article, which said:

In an Aug. 27 post, one Facebook user said it was “perfectly legal” for Kyle Rittenhouse — who was arrested in Antioch, Ill., after fleeing Wisconsin — to brandish an assault-style rifle on the streets of Kenosha.

“Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal,” the poster said. “Based on the laws I can find of this area at 17 years old Kyle was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

The PolitiFact article zeroed in on the phrase “perfectly legal” and opined, “Is that true? State law suggests not.”

PolitiFact concluded:

Whether Rittenhouse violated Wisconsin law by possessing a firearm underage is the subject of ongoing litigation. But the Facebook post claimed that it was “perfectly legal” for the teenager to carry an assault-style rifle in Kenosha.

At best, that’s unproven. At worst, it’s inaccurate. Either way, we rate the post False.

On November 15, 2021, Breitbart News noted that Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the firearms charge against Rittenhouse, siding with the Defense’s claim that the law is only applicable if Rittenhouse carried a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR).

KENOSHA, WISCONSIN - NOVEMBER 10: Judge Bruce Schroeder, reprimands Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger in his conduct in line of questioning while cross-examining Kyle Rittenhouse during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse on November 10, 2021 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse is accused of shooting three demonstrators, killing two of them, during a night of unrest that erupted in Kenosha after a police officer shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back while being arrested in August 2020. Rittenhouse, from Antioch, Illinois, was 17 at the time of the shooting and armed with an assault rifle. He faces counts of felony homicide and felony attempted homicide. (Photo by Sean Krajacic-Pool/Getty Images)

Democrat Representative Jackie Speier Announces She Is Retiring

https://conservativebrief.com/democrat-retiring-54699/

Democrats are dropping like flies as we head into the 2022 midterm elections and polls suggest a red wave for Republicans is probable.

And now one of the party’s top members, Rep. Jackie Speier, has announced that she too will not be campaigning for re-election as the list of retiring Democrat representatives grows to 8.

“Today, I am announcing that I will not be a candidate for reelection to Congress in 2022,” the representative said in a video shared on Twitter. “It’s time for me to come home, time for me to be more than a weekend wife, mother, and friend. It has been an extraordinary privilege and honor to represent the people of San Mateo County and San Francisco at almost every level of government for nearly four decades. I have been deeply touched by your support in good times and bad.”

Advertisement

Speier was a staff assistant to Rep. Leo Ryan in 1978 when she went with a delegation to Jonestown in Guyana.

It was there that they were ambushed. Rep. Ryan was assassinated and Speier was riddled with bullets.

“Forty-three years ago this week, I was lying on an airstrip in the jungles of Guyana with five bullet holes in my body. I vowed that if I survived, I would dedicate my life to public service. I lived, and I survived,” she said.

But she hinted that her retirement would not be the end of her life in politics as she said, “there’s also another chapter or two in my book of life, and I intend to contribute to you, the communities I love, on the peninsula and in San Francisco and the country.”

She joins other top Democrat Reps. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, David Price of North Carolina and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, among others who have announced their retirements.

The California representative has been a close ally of House Speaker and fellow California Rep. Nancy Pelosi and there has been speculation that she, too, is considering retirement.

Human Events Senior Editor Jack Posobiec said on Election Day this month, as a red wave swept the nation, that House Speaker and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi is telling people she is heading to retirement.

“Hearing Pelosi is telling people she is not running for re-election tonight. Doesn’t want to be tied to 2022,” he said.

...moar..

Court Deals New Blow to ‘Fatally Flawed’ Biden Vaccine Mandates, But What Does That Mean?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/biden-administration-covid-vaccine-mandates/

Peruse the headlines in most U.S. major media outlets, and you get the impression legal resistance to vaccine-related mandates, at the federal and local level, is a lost cause.

As the Wall Street Journal recently proclaimed, vaccine mandates are “surviving nearly all court challenges.”

But are vaccine mandates really bulletproof? Or do they face a viable threat from the many lawsuits filed across the country on behalf of a broad range of individuals and groups?

The many legal challenges now making their way through the system go far beyond the handful of cases that have recently received publicity in the mainstream press.

They put forth a wide variety of legal and constitutional arguments that, at least in some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually likely to address.

This article reviews some of the ongoing legal cases, beginning with the lawsuit filed against the Biden administration, and highlights some of the legal arguments against COVID vaccine mandates.

Biden mandate ‘fatally flawed’ court says

On Nov. 12, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from enforcing — “pending adequate judicial review” of a motion for permanent injunction — the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for private businesses with more than 99 employees.

In a 22-page ruling, the court called the mandate, which was supposed to take effect Jan. 4, “fatally flawed” and said OSHA shall “take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order.”

The court said the mandate fails to consider that the ongoing threat of COVID is more dangerous to some employees than others.

According to the ruling:

“The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address.”

The case against the Biden administration was brought by a variety of entities, ranging from state attorneys general (including Texas, Mississippi and Utah), the American Family Association and multiple businesses and individuals.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President and legal counsel, Mary Holland, said this about the latest ruling:

“The 5th Circuit’s decision to continue to stay the Biden Administration’s OSHA mandate for corporations with 100 or more employees is welcome. As the court held, the mandate is ‘staggeringly overbroad.’

“Many lawsuits filed by different actors are now vying for appellate court hearings. A great deal is in play, and so far the Biden Administration is losing on the constitutionality of its mandate campaign.”

Last week’s ruling followed a ruling by the same court which on Nov. 6 temporarily halted Biden’s vaccine mandate, stating in its brief order:

“Before the court is the petitioners’ emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (the ‘Mandate’) pending expedited judicial review.

“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court.”

After the Nov. 6 ruling, the Biden administration asked the temporary stay be lifted and the various lawsuits against the mandate be combined into one case that would be heard by a randomly selected Court of Appeals.

The White House also expressed confidence its mandate for private businesses will ultimately be upheld. It has also argued the OSHA mandate is, in fact, not a mandate.

The petitioners who brought the case argued the Biden administration’s mandate, or Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) under OSHA terminology, exceeds OSHA’s legal authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

In their emergency motion, lawyers for the petitioners argued:

“[i]n an attempt to impose a nationwide vaccination mandate without approval from Congress, the executive branch has couched its COVID-19 vaccine mandate as an emergency workplace rule affecting nearly 100 million Americans. But the ETS is neither a workplace rule nor responsive to an emergency.”

>>109398

moar

Long article

>>109401

Fake President, anon would think even the sleepiest sleepers would be questioning that.

12 More States Sue Biden Administration Over Vaccine Mandate

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/16/12-states-sue-biden-administration-vaccine-mandate/

Twelve states announced Monday they are suing the Biden Administration to block the vaccine mandate for health care workers, arguing the mandate is unconstitutional and violates several federal laws.

Attorney generals from Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia announced the suit Monday, saying “the Biden Administration is playing statutory shell games with the courts, straining to justify an unjustifiable and unprecedented attempt to federalize public health policy and diminish the sovereign States’ constitutional powers.”

“No statute authorizes the federal Executive to mandate vaccines to increase societal immunity,” the suit reads, noting President Joe Biden has touted the vaccine as a way to increase immunity. “The Administration’s solution? Use statutory schemes never before interpreted to allow federal vaccine mandates to shoehorn the President’s goals into the fabric of American society.”

The suit argues against the mandate requiring Medicare and Medicaid health care workers to be vaccinated is unconstitutional and harms patient care as employees are forced to either take the shot or lose their job.

“The Vaccine Mandate causes grave danger to vulnerable persons whom Medicare and Medicaid were designed to protect – the poor, sick, and elderly – by forcing the termination of millions of ‘healthcare heroes’,” the suit reads.

The states’ are asking for a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the mandate.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called the mandate as “unconstitutional power grab.”

“The federal mandates are not about health – they are about forced compliance. Healthcare workers should be allowed to make their own decisions about their health – not President Biden. If his unprecedented overreach is not stopped, healthcare workers will lose their jobs threatening access to medical care that Montanans need.”

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said “this is about so much more than vaccines. It’s about planting a flag to say that ‘enough is enough.’ The federal government’s power is not boundless, but if we are vigilant to fight here and now, there will be no going back.”

Health care employees who work at facilities that accept federal funding from Medicare or Medicaid must be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4 and do not have the option to submit to regular testing rather than get vaccinated. (RELATED: Biden Administration Relying On Informants To Enforce Vaccine Mandates)

Several states, including some of the aforementioned, are enjoined in a separate suit against the vaccine mandate for federal contractors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit halted the administration’s rule requiring employers with more than 100 employees to mandate the vaccine or implement weekly testing, with the court ruling since petitioners believe “there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court.”

The court then later reaffirmed their decision, ruling the mandate likely “violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty” and that the mandate was “staggeringly overbroad.”

..muh sides..