Regarding hazardous substances, such as those that have been known to be added to the vaccines, OSHA has been authorized to set maximum exposure levels, i.e. 10 ppm of benzene, but not minimum exposure levels. That is, no OSHA rule authorizes OSHA to force minimum exposure levels to substances that have hazard mitigation protocols in the Oxford Materials Safety Data Sheets.
That's a temporary fix, at best. The permanent fix is that the Constitution doesn't contain the words "mandate," "health," or "emergency" anywhere, much less in the same sentence. The Constitution is a list of the things government is allowed to do. If it's not in there, it's not allowed. The president's power to issue orders to people with the expectation that they'll jump to carry out his whims is limited to employees of the executive branch and restricted to their immediate duties. He is not permitted to use EB employees as flying monkeys to violate individual rights second-hand. He can't use them to carry out his random edicts that aren't authorized by the Constitution. He can't direct OSHA to require workplaces with more than 100 employees to do daily prostate exams on all male employees, nor "mandate" that male employees wear skirts to make the exams easier. There's no more constitutional justification for that scenario than the one we're currently in.
Justin, I have nothing new to add here. Just wanted to say how important and helpful this breakdown you’re doing is for our deeper understanding. Thank you!
Believe it or not, they're more likely to have been the popular kids or the ones in the middle of the pack. The bullied loners are far more likely to have been the kids who were strong enough to go their own way, then and now. This is the revenge of the mentally passive conformists, and those can come from any scholastic or social clique. All they need for membership is the refusal to think for themselves, a craving to be led, and a resentment toward people who don't fear reality and adulthood. They're enjoying the current state of the world because finally their flaws, of which they've always been secretly ashamed, are being celebrated as virtues. The continued existence of people who don't bootlick and aren't afraid to be left alone is a reproach to them, and they find it intolerable. That's why they enjoy enforcing slave muzzle fatwas, screaming at people for walking against the floor arrows, and showing off their sparkly new Band-Aids.
If "the principal benefit of face coverings is to significantly reduce the wearer's ability to spread the virus," then maybe the CDC can explain why medical examiners wear them to do autopsies. Do they think it's to protect the stiff? In a medical setting, masks are worn to protect medical personnel from incoming body fluids and bone chips. To the extent that they're used to protect patients, it's to protect them from bacterial infections, and study after study dating to at least 1984 demonstrates that the patients of masked surgeons have the same or *higher* rates of post-op infections than surgeons who don't mask. While they're at it, the CDC can try to explain why in the fall of 2020 it advised Californians not to rely on their face diapers to protect them from smoke from forest fires. If the diapers don't work against the particulates in smoke, which are thousands of times larger than any virion, then they don't work against viral particles.
"[R]equiring unvaccinated workers to wear face coverings" will *not* "further mitigate the potential for unvaccinated workers to spread the virus at the workplace" for the simple reason that masks are non-functional against the spread of something as small as viruses. Further, since "vaccinated" people shed as much or more virus than the unvaccinated (because the "vaccines" aren't vaccines by any medical or legal definition), the CDC's argument fails on every practical level, to say nothing of the moral one. The CDC knows that, and provides itself with a loophole: Slave muzzles are magically one-way. They work better when the virus is going from the wearer than to him. I'm agog to hear the CDC's science on how viruses know which side of a gaping piece of fabric they're on.
Finally, for you naysayers and anti-government types, I hope you reconsider your position now that the CDC has swung into action and noticed that people get more colds in the winter.
I discuss a technicality that should pre-empt the OSHA mandate here: https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/what-is-in-a-vaccine
Regarding hazardous substances, such as those that have been known to be added to the vaccines, OSHA has been authorized to set maximum exposure levels, i.e. 10 ppm of benzene, but not minimum exposure levels. That is, no OSHA rule authorizes OSHA to force minimum exposure levels to substances that have hazard mitigation protocols in the Oxford Materials Safety Data Sheets.
That's a temporary fix, at best. The permanent fix is that the Constitution doesn't contain the words "mandate," "health," or "emergency" anywhere, much less in the same sentence. The Constitution is a list of the things government is allowed to do. If it's not in there, it's not allowed. The president's power to issue orders to people with the expectation that they'll jump to carry out his whims is limited to employees of the executive branch and restricted to their immediate duties. He is not permitted to use EB employees as flying monkeys to violate individual rights second-hand. He can't use them to carry out his random edicts that aren't authorized by the Constitution. He can't direct OSHA to require workplaces with more than 100 employees to do daily prostate exams on all male employees, nor "mandate" that male employees wear skirts to make the exams easier. There's no more constitutional justification for that scenario than the one we're currently in.
Justin, I have nothing new to add here. Just wanted to say how important and helpful this breakdown you’re doing is for our deeper understanding. Thank you!
All the kids who were bullied in high school are finally getting their revenge.
Believe it or not, they're more likely to have been the popular kids or the ones in the middle of the pack. The bullied loners are far more likely to have been the kids who were strong enough to go their own way, then and now. This is the revenge of the mentally passive conformists, and those can come from any scholastic or social clique. All they need for membership is the refusal to think for themselves, a craving to be led, and a resentment toward people who don't fear reality and adulthood. They're enjoying the current state of the world because finally their flaws, of which they've always been secretly ashamed, are being celebrated as virtues. The continued existence of people who don't bootlick and aren't afraid to be left alone is a reproach to them, and they find it intolerable. That's why they enjoy enforcing slave muzzle fatwas, screaming at people for walking against the floor arrows, and showing off their sparkly new Band-Aids.
If "the principal benefit of face coverings is to significantly reduce the wearer's ability to spread the virus," then maybe the CDC can explain why medical examiners wear them to do autopsies. Do they think it's to protect the stiff? In a medical setting, masks are worn to protect medical personnel from incoming body fluids and bone chips. To the extent that they're used to protect patients, it's to protect them from bacterial infections, and study after study dating to at least 1984 demonstrates that the patients of masked surgeons have the same or *higher* rates of post-op infections than surgeons who don't mask. While they're at it, the CDC can try to explain why in the fall of 2020 it advised Californians not to rely on their face diapers to protect them from smoke from forest fires. If the diapers don't work against the particulates in smoke, which are thousands of times larger than any virion, then they don't work against viral particles.
"[R]equiring unvaccinated workers to wear face coverings" will *not* "further mitigate the potential for unvaccinated workers to spread the virus at the workplace" for the simple reason that masks are non-functional against the spread of something as small as viruses. Further, since "vaccinated" people shed as much or more virus than the unvaccinated (because the "vaccines" aren't vaccines by any medical or legal definition), the CDC's argument fails on every practical level, to say nothing of the moral one. The CDC knows that, and provides itself with a loophole: Slave muzzles are magically one-way. They work better when the virus is going from the wearer than to him. I'm agog to hear the CDC's science on how viruses know which side of a gaping piece of fabric they're on.
Finally, for you naysayers and anti-government types, I hope you reconsider your position now that the CDC has swung into action and noticed that people get more colds in the winter.