Fauci Lied “Knowingly, Willfully And Brazenly”: An Interview With Dr. Richard Ebright

Fauci Lied “Knowingly, Willfully And Brazenly”: An Interview With Dr. Richard Ebright

Submitted by Quoth the Raven from QTR’s “Fringe Finance” at http://quoththeraven.substack.com,

This is an interview with Dr. Richard Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University and Laboratory Director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology. Ebright received an A.B. summa cum laude in biology from Harvard University in 1981 and a Ph.D. in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics from Harvard University in 1987.

Ebright recently made national headlines when he responded to The Intercept’s FOIA dump of more than 900 documents showing that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied in front of Congress about the NIH funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,” Ebright wrote about the Intercept data dump earlier this month.

IDU on Twitter: "Molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright has said, that  #NovelCoronavirus could have been unleashed from the #Wuhan Institute of  Virology. #ChineseVirus #CCPVirus #covidindia #Covid19usa…  https://t.co/oFNpG19JQn"

Given his prestige, knowledge of the subject matter and willingness to criticize Dr. Fauci publicly despite residing in academia, I wanted to reach out to Dr. Ebright and get him to expound on his thoughts about Covid-19.

Here is my exclusive interview with Ebright.

Q: Hi, Richard. You’re recently well known for your comments regarding the Intercept FOIA request, claiming it was proof Dr. Fauci definitively lied about funding gain of function research. Do you personally believe this was a nefarious cover up or a warranted situation of Fauci trying to do the right thing by not bringing these details forward?

A: It is plausible Fauci was unaware of the content of the EcoHealth/WIV grant proposals and progress reports before February 2020. But it is not plausible Fauci was unaware of the content of the EcoHealth/WIV proposals and progress reports after February 2020. Fauci lied – knowingly, willfully and brazenly – in his two exchanges with [Sen. Rand] Paul.

Q: What realistic chance do you think Covid-19 was a DIRECT result of the EcoHealth alliance work? In other words, what are the odds NIH funding is DIRECTLY responsible for Covid?

The NIH grant to EcoHealth/WIV funded high-risk surveillance research in Wuhan on bat SARS-related coronaviruses and high-risk gain-of-function research in Wuhan on bat SARS-related coronaviruses. It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through infection of a field-worker or laboratory worker performing these high-risk research activities (“research-related spillover hypothesis”).

However, it also is possible hat SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through a natural accident (“natural spillover hypothesis”).

All available scientific or other secure data are fully consistent with both research-related spillover and with natural spillover. No available scientific or other secure data enable assigning relative probabilities to research-related spillover or natural spillover.

Q: What you are thoughts on the efficacy and use of vaccines? Are they as effective as we are making them out to be and should we be pushing them for everybody (including kids) as we are doing?

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccine mandates are appropriate and urgently needed. Vaccination of children of age 4-11 is appropriate and urgently needed.

Q: Why do you think the topic of natural immunity isn’t being broached or talked about widely? Is natural immunity more robust than immunity from the vaccine?

The available evidence – both based on levels of neutralizing antibodies, and based on rates of infection – indicates that the vaccines provide at least equal, and likely greater, protection than prior infection.

Most concerning, a significant fraction of unvaccinated but previously infected persons (persons who have not been vaccinated but who had tested positive, in PCR tests, for COVID-19 in 2020-2021) have no detactable of neutralizaing antibodies.

Confirmed prior infection is…

(You can read the rest of this interview at QTR’s “Fringe Finance” blog here and you can find more on Dr. Ebright’s resume here.)

*  *  *

My latest articles on the pandemic:

1. Forum: Has The Media Been Fair Covering Ivermectin? (READ HERE)

2. Fauci Was “Untruthful”: Powerful New FOIA Evidence Shows U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research In Wuhan (READ HERE)

3. The Hysterical Joe Rogan Ivermectin Coverage Is Exactly Why People Don’t Trust Media Anymore (READ HERE)

4. 5 Frightening Examples Of Recent Government Overreach Disguised As Covid Prevention (READ HERE)

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/14/2021 – 14:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zcxpMD Tyler Durden

Border Patrol Agent Wants SCOTUS To Make It Effectively Impossible To Sue Abusive Federal Officers


thumbnaill

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers can be held civilly liable—sued—for conduct that violates constitutional rights. In a recent legal filing, a federal Border Patrol agent asked the Court to “reconsider Bivens” and make it effectively impossible to sue rogue federal officers over their rights-violating conduct. To make matters worse, some members of the Supreme Court might be willing to take the agent up on the offer.

The case is Egbert v. Boule. Robert Boule owns a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the U.S.-Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert wanted to question one of Boule’s guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule asked the agent to leave his property but Egbert refused. Egbert then allegedly shoved Boule against a car and pushed him to the ground, injuring Boule’s back. Boule later complained to Egbert’s superiors about this mistreatment. In retaliation for that complaint, the agent asked the IRS to investigate Boule’s tax status. Boule was audited.

Boule filed a Bivens complaint against Egbert, suing the agent in federal court for violating his rights under both the First Amendment (for retaliating against Boule’s lawful speech complaining about the agent’s conduct) and the Fourth Amendment (for refusing to leave Boule’s property and using force against him).

Boule prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which said that any hesitancy about letting this lawsuit move forward in federal court is “outweighed by compelling interests in favor of protecting United States citizens from unlawful activity by federal agents within the United States.”

Egbert and his lawyers now want the Supreme Court to overturn that 9th Circuit decision in the name of greater judicial deference toward federal law enforcement. This case, they argue in a petition seeking review, “arises in a setting raising exceptionally sensitive questions about whether recognizing Bivens actions will undercut the ability of Border Patrol agents to fulfill their basic mission of securing the border, enforcing the immigration laws, and protecting national security.”

The Bivens precedent has its critics on the High Court and this petition is directed squarely at them. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has argued that “the analysis underlying Bivens cannot be defended.” Thomas thinks Bivens went wrong because the federal courts have no business recognizing such federal causes for action absent a congressional statute.

But Thomas sells Bivens short. As I have previously argued, “the idea that federal judges have the authority to impose damages against lawless federal officers is as old as the republic—older, in fact, since it comes from venerable British common law judgments that directly influenced the founding generation.”

Rather than eliminate Bivens, as this allegedly abusive federal agent wants, the Supreme Court should strengthen the precedent so that even more victims of rights-violating federal officers can get their respective days in court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XifUwU
via IFTTT

D.C. Attorney General Widens Scope Of Lawsuit Against Amazon

D.C. Attorney General Widens Scope Of Lawsuit Against Amazon

Democratic Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine is broadening the scope of a lawsuit against Amazon to include allegations of bogging down wholesalers who provide goods to vendors that compete with Amazon.

Racine had previously sued Amazon in May, alleging the company “fixes prices online by preventing the third-party sellers that use its marketplace from offering their products at lower prices elsewhere”, according to the Washington Post

In an amended complaint, Racine charges that Amazon illegally shuts down competition by requiring that wholesalers guarantee the company will make a minimum profit when it buys and resells their goods.

These deals enable Amazon to lower its prices to beat out competitors by making wholesalers compensate for lost profits. This then prompts the same wholesalers to raise prices when selling to competition, the lawsuit alleges. 

Racine’s allegations are the first in the United States of their kind against Amazon. 

The requirements “insulate Amazon’s online marketplace from competition, further entrench its monopoly, and result in higher prices and less choice for consumers,” the complaint says. “We knew Amazon’s anti-competitive behavior was far-reaching — and through our investigation, we’re realizing just how far it goes,” Racine told WaPo.

A spokesperson for Amazon commented: “The DC Attorney General has it exactly backwards – sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store. The relief the AG seeks would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law.”

Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the anti-monopoly group Institute for Local Self-Reliance, commented: “So often Amazon’s market power is sort of seen in this one dimensional way, and in fact Amazon plays these multiple role roles in the market.”

Recall, back in May, Racine filed his first suit against Amazon, alleging that the company’s practices have unfairly raised prices for consumers while suppressing competition and innovation. The lawsuit is seeking to end Amazon’s use of allegedly illegal price agreements to edge out competitors, recover damages and impose penalties. The lawsuit alleged that Amazon’s conduct made it virtually impossible for third-party sellers to offer goods at a better price than Amazon.

The suit initially alleged that Amazon illegally maintained monopoly power by using contract provisions to prevent third-party sellers on its platform from offering their products for lower prices on other platforms. The attorney general’s office claimed the contracts create a “an artificially high price floor across the online retail marketplace,” according to a press release. The AG claimed these agreements ultimately harm both consumers and third-party sellers by reducing competition, innovation and choice.

Until 2019, Amazon included a clause in its third-party seller agreement that they couldn’t offer goods on Amazon at a higher price than they were offered on other third-party platforms. Amazon eventually removed that provision amid growing anti-trust scrutiny.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/14/2021 – 13:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lqlXI9 Tyler Durden

Federal Court Temporarily Blocks New York’s Prohibition on Religious Exemptions from Its Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

Judge David N. Hurd just decided this in A. v. Hochul; it’s a temporary restraining order, to maintain the pre-mandate status quo until Sept. 28, when the preliminary injunction hearing will take place. (The mandate requires a vaccination by Sept. 27 for some covered employees and Oct. 7 for others, so its practical effect may be quite short, if the judge hands out a decision on the preliminary injunction at the hearing or shortly after it.) The order doesn’t give detailed reasons, but that’s not uncommon in such temporary orders.

Because the rationale for the order has to do with the rights of religious objectors (chiefly under the Free Exercise Clause and under federal employment law), the order suspends the vaccine mandate only as to the state’s “enforcing any requirement that employers deny [or revoke] religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination.” It doesn’t block the mandate more generally.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Xh2HoN
via IFTTT

Today’s Recall Election Shows California’s One-Party Rule May Stick Around


bidenGavin_1161x653

It’s Election Day in California, where voters will be deciding whether they want Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to finish out his first term, which ends in 2022, or be replaced by one of the 46 replacement candidates.

The latest polls are favorable to Newsom, with 53 percent of voters opting to keep Newsom and 45 percent opting to remove him. If those numbers hold, this is going to be far from a replay of Gov. Gray Davis’ recall in 2003.

Back in July and August it looked pretty dicey for Newsom as undecided voters had started to break toward tossing him. But the latest poll by the national survey company Trafalgar Group has the undecided voters flipping back in his favor, and only 2 percent of those polled remained undecided.

Republican talk show host Larry Elder remains the front-runner as a possible replacement. But Republicans are already blaming voter fraud for a potential loss in a state where mass numbers of citizens in the cities habitually vote blue over and over again. It’s the two-button meme in action: Conservatives regularly decry the state’s citizens favoring progressive candidates and policies that wreck the economy, harm businesses, prevent housing construction, and drive people out of the state. And they’re right! But to also claim that the vote to keep Newsom is fraudulent? Those two ideas don’t combine well. Newsom is not that special or different a politician from the rest of the Democratic establishment in a profoundly blue state.

The voter-fraud excuse, instead of an acceptance of defeat, also makes it harder for candidates like Elder to insist on being seen as independent from former President Donald Trump if Elder’s just going to pursue the same sore-loser tactics.

What might have caused a bit of a secondary shift in undecided voters was the actual statements put out by recall proponents that were then sent out to citizens. The signature-gathering effort began well before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, before Newsom used his emergency powers to oppressively lock down the state and then swanned off to The French Laundry for a fancy dinner. It’s a hobby for some folks to try to recall elected officials. Pretty much every year petitions circulate that fail to gather enough signatures. This petition didn’t start off any differently from the others.

But Newsom’s overly zealous authority-mongering in response to COVID-19 made people unhappy enough to push signature gatherers over the edge. This is what proponents circulated to justify the recall:

“Governor Newsom has implemented laws which are detrimental to the citizens of this state and our way of life. Laws he endorsed favor foreign nationals, in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens. People in this state suffer the highest taxes in the nation, the highest homelessness rates, and the lowest quality of life as a result. He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws. He unilaterally over-ruled the will of the people regarding the death penalty. He seeks to impose additional burdens on our state by the following; removing the protections of Proposition 13, rationing our water use, increasing taxes and restricting parental rights. Having no other recourse, we the people have come together to take this action, remedy these misdeeds and prevent further injustices.”

Unlike Newsom’s authoritarian COVID-19 response, much of the above is a result of normal representative lawmaking. Legislators, not the governor, implemented sanctuary state laws, for example (though Newsom supports them). Recall proponents are lodging objections to Democratic establishment positions shared not just by Newsom, but by many people in the state. This doesn’t make all the policies good, mind you, but removing the governor isn’t going to fix them, particularly if a majority of Californians support them.

Newsom has essentially campaigned on all of these issues, and defenders are fighting the recall by calling it a Republican takeover attempt. But beyond that, they’re attacking the idea of the recall itself as undemocratic. They’ve gone so far as to tell Newsom supporters to vote no on the recall, all while omitting that they still have the right to vote for a replacement if he loses. If voters follow the advice of CNN and MSNBC commentator, lawyer, and former New York State Assistant Attorney General Tristan Snell they’ll actually lose their opportunity to decide who would replace Newsom if he loses.

This tactic could fuel a potential legal challenge based on the claim that Newsom’s successor is likely to get fewer votes than Newsom. This is not some sort of anti-democratic civil rights atrocity, it’s basic math. If Newsom gets booted from office, it’s because the majority of voters no longer wanted him as governor. Because there are 46 potential replacements, the votes for his successor are likely to be spread around. If they wanted to make sure the winning candidate gets a majority of the vote, the state could implement ranked choice voting.

But that’s not the point. It’s a cynical attack on the process meant to serve as a cover for one political party’s power structure. These are the “anti-democratic” actions and it’s what pushed me over the edge to voting in favor of the recall. Voters sent California’s leadership a message by rejecting many of their favored policies in ballot initiatives last year. Voters rejected efforts to undermine Proposition 13 and exempted independent rideshare drivers from harsh employment laws.

The establishment seems likely to win this evening and, as Reason‘s Matt Welch writes, the likely result will be an attempt to make it harder to bring a recall petition to vote. The Democratic Party in California lost me long ago; I actually partly credit their economic ignorance, complete capture by public sector unions, and oppressive regulatory practices for helping me realize I’m a libertarian.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3Ega5RK
via IFTTT

Upside-Downton Inflation

Upside-Downton Inflation

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The US CPI report for August is clearly going to be the major market focus today. Expectations are 0.4% m/m headline and 0.3% core, equivalent to 5.3% y/y and 4.2% respectively. Who, especially among those saying inflation is not a problem, had a 5%+ headline figure pencilled in for this stage in the year?

As a warm-up for that report, replete with all the methodological problems covered here before, consider that the New York Fed’s own inflation survey released yesterday showed median 1-year-ahead inflation expectations increased by 0.3ppts to 5.2%, the tenth consecutive monthly increase and a new series high, and median inflation expectations at the 3-year horizon also increased by 0.3ppts to a new series high of 4.0%. Both increases were broad based across age and income groups. In other words, the public the New York Fed, the home of Wall Street, speaks to, still expects inflation twice the Fed’s target in late 2024.

Of course, median inflation uncertainty—or the uncertainty expressed regarding future inflation outcomes—is also at new series highs. After all, if inflation is going to surprise in any direction relative to that 4% figure over the medium term, it is likely to be the downside via a biting deflation. That’s a sugar-high boom/bust picture painted back at the start of this year when I discussed frankly laughable “The Roaring 20s” meme, if sold as by ahistorical teenage scribblers as a positive, while pointing out “If so, can you count to 30s?” And let’s agree the political backdrop is still bang in line with that prediction, with even greater polarisation everywhere, and even greater perceived failings on the part of liberal capitalism: any number of “-isms” are confidently building their own alternative socio-economic prospectuses, just as they did 100 years ago. Socialism; communism; Islamism (via the Taliban’s ‘renaissance’); and, as some argue, neo-feudalism – which I will return to in a moment.

But first back to the New York Fed report. Median year-ahead home price change expectations decreased slightly to 5.9% in August from 6.0%, marking the third consecutive monthly decline: so has US house-price inflation peaked? The thought may please the Fed, who are more into pumping stocks –the survey’s mean perceived probability that US stocks will be higher 12 months from now remained unchanged at 39%, showing they have some work to do there– but it will terrify others. Imagine the RBA: do they think Aussie house prices can rise another 30% this decade, as a hypothetical example? But what will Aussie society look like if so, assuming wages come nowhere near matching that increase? And yet what will the economy look like if house prices don’t rise? After all, that ‘wealth’ (read ‘debt’) effect has been the main fuel in the tank of far too many economies for far too long, as I have gnashed my teeth, pulled my hair, and wailed from Moab about for years. But what do we have to replace it? “I can’t believe it’s not ‘Build Back Better’”.

And while house-price inflation may perhaps have peaked, the survey says this isn’t true for expectations of year-ahead rents, which were up 0.2ppts to a staggering 10.0%; or medical care, up 0.2ppts to 9.7%; or gasoline, up 1.1ppts to 9.2%; or food, up 0.8ppts to 7.9%; or education (college) was up 0.5ppts to 7.0%. Of course, the hypothetical CPI ex-rent, medicine, gasoline, food, and education is still looking benign.

Meanwhile, median 1-year-ahead expected earnings growth fell 0.4ppts to 2.5%, comparable to its February 2020 level, with the decrease was driven mostly by respondents over the age of 40. Mean unemployment expectations –the probability the US unemployment rate will be higher one year from now– increased by 3.3ppts to 35%. The perceived probability of finding a job if one’s current job was lost fell to 54.9% from 57.0%, driven by respondents aged 60 and over. The perceived probability of losing one’s job in the next 12 months increased slightly to 12.4% from 12.2%, but fortunately remains near the series low. Yet the probability of leaving one’s job voluntarily in the next 12 months also increased to 20.0% from 19.7%.

There is lots more one could dive into in this survey, but now back to my earlier point on neo-feudalism. I very belatedly finished watching ‘Downton Abbey’ last night. Only covering the 20s up to 1926, we see a British society suffering depression, the causes of which rightly do not get much dramatic exposition: “Mrs Patmore, I am sure you will agree the return to the gold standard is a necessary evil to ensure sound money?“Sorry, Mr. Carson, I am too busy working 14-hours a day cooking for the lord and ladies upstairs to notice the anchor for our fiscal and monetary policy.”

What you also see, besides romantic ups and downs, is a society seeing a massive structural shift. The rich are suffering, with great houses being sold off or relying on American dowries to support them, and servants are leaving for better-paid, less-deferential work. The series concludes with even the aristocrats cheering for social and economic progress, and a fairer, more globalized, more modern world. Even Mrs Patmore becomes petit-bourgeoisie with her own B&B, as does staunchly pro-establishment conservative Mr Carson. Some aristocrats actually start to get jobs.

Today, extreme concentrations of wealth and monopoly/oligopoly are being built up rather than dismantled, alongside a new homoploutia (both income and asset rich): and they don’t need the noblesse oblige of full-time servants now swathes of the working class are in the gig economy at everyone’s beck-and-call. A few last, lucky Mrs Patmore’s may squeak in to the buy-to-let property ladder in some places, but the majority of the young face a life of gigging and renting, leaving no assets to their kids; or perhaps having no kids, leaving no society. Meanwhile, social progress is happening at bewildering speed in some places, as massive regression is being seen in others – and often in the same country at the same time.

Of course, as in Downton, all things are fluid. China is acting for ‘common prosperity’; the Biden administration is floating (if not delivering) massive structural increases in social spending; and in the US, Amazon is offering free degrees to some of its employees, a radical extension of Marx’s prediction of the proletariat learning how to rule from capitalists. Moreover, the Financial Times quotes Scott Price, president of UPS International, stating that in response to the inflation –and shortages!–we are seeing, multinational retailers and manufacturers are now regionalizing their supply chains: A lot of companies are coming to us saying ‘where is the best place to put manufacturing and assembly?’ There’s an understanding that reliance on stretched supply chains puts you at risk.” That implies the promise of much more serious inflation in places where the jobs go, and of deflation where the jobs leave.

So try to grasp the scale and pace of structural changes occurring in the environment in which inflation is, or isn’t, created. For now, everything is upside-downton, but where it ends up(ton) is still an open question. Is a mechanistic return to a 2% CPI trend our future reality or already ancient history?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/14/2021 – 13:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XtnFR4 Tyler Durden

Border Patrol Agent Wants SCOTUS To Make It Effectively Impossible To Sue Abusive Federal Officers


thumbnaill

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers can be held civilly liable—sued—for conduct that violates constitutional rights. In a recent legal filing, a federal Border Patrol agent asked the Court to “reconsider Bivens” and make it effectively impossible to sue rogue federal officers over their rights-violating conduct. To make matters worse, some members of the Supreme Court might be willing to take the agent up on the offer.

The case is Egbert v. Boule. Robert Boule owns a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the U.S.-Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert wanted to question one of Boule’s guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule asked the agent to leave his property but Egbert refused. Egbert then allegedly shoved Boule against a car and pushed him to the ground, injuring Boule’s back. Boule later complained to Egbert’s superiors about this mistreatment. In retaliation for that complaint, the agent asked the IRS to investigate Boule’s tax status. Boule was audited.

Boule filed a Bivens complaint against Egbert, suing the agent in federal court for violating his rights under both the First Amendment (for retaliating against Boule’s lawful speech complaining about the agent’s conduct) and the Fourth Amendment (for refusing to leave Boule’s property and using force against him).

Boule prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which said that any hesitancy about letting this lawsuit move forward in federal court is “outweighed by compelling interests in favor of protecting United States citizens from unlawful activity by federal agents within the United States.”

Egbert and his lawyers now want the Supreme Court to overturn that 9th Circuit decision in the name of greater judicial deference toward federal law enforcement. This case, they argue in a petition seeking review, “arises in a setting raising exceptionally sensitive questions about whether recognizing Bivens actions will undercut the ability of Border Patrol agents to fulfill their basic mission of securing the border, enforcing the immigration laws, and protecting national security.”

The Bivens precedent has its critics on the High Court and this petition is directed squarely at them. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has argued that “the analysis underlying Bivens cannot be defended.” Thomas thinks Bivens went wrong because the federal courts have no business recognizing such federal causes for action absent a congressional statute.

But Thomas sells Bivens short. As I have previously argued, “the idea that federal judges have the authority to impose damages against lawless federal officers is as old as the republic—older, in fact, since it comes from venerable British common law judgments that directly influenced the founding generation.”

Rather than eliminate Bivens, as this allegedly abusive federal agent wants, the Supreme Court should strengthen the precedent so that even more victims of rights-violating federal officers can get their respective days in court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XifUwU
via IFTTT

Federal Court Temporarily Blocks New York’s Prohibition on Religious Exemptions from Its Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

Judge David N. Hurd just decided this in A. v. Hochul; it’s a temporary restraining order, to maintain the pre-mandate status quo until Sept. 28, when the preliminary injunction hearing will take place. (The mandate requires a vaccination by Sept. 27 for some covered employees and Oct. 7 for others, so its practical effect may be quite short, if the judge hands out a decision on the preliminary injunction at the hearing or shortly after it.) The order doesn’t give detailed reasons, but that’s not uncommon in such temporary orders.

Because the rationale for the order has to do with the rights of religious objectors (chiefly under the Free Exercise Clause and under federal employment law), the order suspends the vaccine mandate only as to the state’s “enforcing any requirement that employers deny [or revoke] religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination.” It doesn’t block the mandate more generally.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Xh2HoN
via IFTTT

Today’s Recall Election Shows California’s One-Party Rule May Stick Around


bidenGavin_1161x653

It’s Election Day in California, where voters will be deciding whether they want Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to finish out his first term, which ends in 2022, or be replaced by one of the 46 replacement candidates.

The latest polls are favorable to Newsom, with 53 percent of voters opting to keep Newsom and 45 percent opting to remove him. If those numbers hold, this is going to be far from a replay of Gov. Gray Davis’ recall in 2003.

Back in July and August it looked pretty dicey for Newsom as undecided voters had started to break toward tossing him. But the latest poll by the national survey company Trafalgar Group has the undecided voters flipping back in his favor, and only 2 percent of those polled remained undecided.

Republican talk show host Larry Elder remains the front-runner as a possible replacement. But Republicans are already blaming voter fraud for a potential loss in a state where mass numbers of citizens in the cities habitually vote blue over and over again. It’s the two-button meme in action: Conservatives regularly decry the state’s citizens favoring progressive candidates and policies that wreck the economy, harm businesses, prevent housing construction, and drive people out of the state. And they’re right! But to also claim that the vote to keep Newsom is fraudulent? Those two ideas don’t combine well. Newsom is not that special or different a politician from the rest of the Democratic establishment in a profoundly blue state.

The voter-fraud excuse, instead of an acceptance of defeat, also makes it harder for candidates like Elder to insist on being seen as independent from former President Donald Trump if Elder’s just going to pursue the same sore-loser tactics.

What might have caused a bit of a secondary shift in undecided voters was the actual statements put out by recall proponents that were then sent out to citizens. The signature-gathering effort began well before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, before Newsom used his emergency powers to oppressively lock down the state and then swanned off to The French Laundry for a fancy dinner. It’s a hobby for some folks to try to recall elected officials. Pretty much every year petitions circulate that fail to gather enough signatures. This petition didn’t start off any differently from the others.

But Newsom’s overly zealous authority-mongering in response to COVID-19 made people unhappy enough to push signature gatherers over the edge. This is what proponents circulated to justify the recall:

“Governor Newsom has implemented laws which are detrimental to the citizens of this state and our way of life. Laws he endorsed favor foreign nationals, in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens. People in this state suffer the highest taxes in the nation, the highest homelessness rates, and the lowest quality of life as a result. He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws. He unilaterally over-ruled the will of the people regarding the death penalty. He seeks to impose additional burdens on our state by the following; removing the protections of Proposition 13, rationing our water use, increasing taxes and restricting parental rights. Having no other recourse, we the people have come together to take this action, remedy these misdeeds and prevent further injustices.”

Unlike Newsom’s authoritarian COVID-19 response, much of the above is a result of normal representative lawmaking. Legislators, not the governor, implemented sanctuary state laws, for example (though Newsom supports them). Recall proponents are lodging objections to Democratic establishment positions shared not just by Newsom, but by many people in the state. This doesn’t make all the policies good, mind you, but removing the governor isn’t going to fix them, particularly if a majority of Californians support them.

Newsom has essentially campaigned on all of these issues, and defenders are fighting the recall by calling it a Republican takeover attempt. But beyond that, they’re attacking the idea of the recall itself as undemocratic. They’ve gone so far as to tell Newsom supporters to vote no on the recall, all while omitting that they still have the right to vote for a replacement if he loses. If voters follow the advice of CNN and MSNBC commentator, lawyer, and former New York State Assistant Attorney General Tristan Snell they’ll actually lose their opportunity to decide who would replace Newsom if he loses.

This tactic could fuel a potential legal challenge based on the claim that Newsom’s successor is likely to get fewer votes than Newsom. This is not some sort of anti-democratic civil rights atrocity, it’s basic math. If Newsom gets booted from office, it’s because the majority of voters no longer wanted him as governor. Because there are 46 potential replacements, the votes for his successor are likely to be spread around. If they wanted to make sure the winning candidate gets a majority of the vote, the state could implement ranked choice voting.

But that’s not the point. It’s a cynical attack on the process meant to serve as a cover for one political party’s power structure. These are the “anti-democratic” actions and it’s what pushed me over the edge to voting in favor of the recall. Voters sent California’s leadership a message by rejecting many of their favored policies in ballot initiatives last year. Voters rejected efforts to undermine Proposition 13 and exempted independent rideshare drivers from harsh employment laws.

The establishment seems likely to win this evening and, as Reason‘s Matt Welch writes, the likely result will be an attempt to make it harder to bring a recall petition to vote. The Democratic Party in California lost me long ago; I actually partly credit their economic ignorance, complete capture by public sector unions, and oppressive regulatory practices for helping me realize I’m a libertarian.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3Ega5RK
via IFTTT

Book Reveals Gen Milley Secretly Sabotaged Trump, Called China, Sparking Talk Of Treason

Book Reveals Gen Milley Secretly Sabotaged Trump, Called China, Sparking Talk Of Treason

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley – who just facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of US military hardware to America’s enemies during the botched Afghanistan pullout – engaged in a ‘top-secret’ mission to undermine President Trump’s ability to order military strikes or launch nuclear weapons following the Jan.6 Capitol riot, according to a new book by Bob Woodword and the Washington Post‘s Robert Costa.

Milley’s treasonous effort was out of fears that Trump could ‘go rogue,’ according to CNN.

“You never know what a president’s trigger point is,” said Milley – who just separated an entire family of Afghan civilians from their mortal coils in a haphazard drone strike.

Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved. -CNN

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” said Milley, unconstitutionally, before going around the room and ‘looking each officer in the eye, asking them to verbally confirm they understood.’

Milley considered it an oath,” wrote the authors.

Meanwhile, Milley also had two ‘back-channel phone calls’ with China’s top general in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Woodward and Costa also write that ‘some might contend that Milley had overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself,’ but he believed his actions were ‘a good faith precaution to ensure there was no historic rupture in the international order, no accidental war with China or others, and no use of nuclear weapons.’

Milley’s actions against a sitting president have sparked outrage and calls for his ouster. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/14/2021 – 13:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tI6gQh Tyler Durden