Jaws, Clowns, and Auroras.....

Fair Use Notice:
Use the information found in the videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conduct your own due diligence before making any significant investing decisions.
Under the following terms", Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode

As with all Independent Journalist folks we can use a helping hand. If you can make a contribution to assist in keeping the lights on please go to my website and use the donate feature in the right sidebar. Thank you
https://paypal.me/aaronaveiro1?locale.x=en_US

Please visit our website and let us know what you think. You may also use the paypal features for donations or other inquiries.
https://aladaymobilemedia.com

Kyle Rittenhouse
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/03/prosecutors-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-are-telling-jurors-a-story-refuted-by-video-evidence-and-eye-witness-testimony/

TODAY'S LINKS;

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/2021/11/03/breaking-early-rollout-vax-injured-claim-ivermectin-successfully-treated-their-paralysis/

https://www.worldtribune.com/post-election-reality-check-glenn-youngkin-the-carlyle-group-and-dominion-voting-systems/

https://youtu.be/u03rN217uYM

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/steele-dossier-federal-authorities-arrested-researcher/2021/11/04/id/1043313/

https://www.newsmax.com/us/new-jersey-legislature-edward-durr-senate/2021/11/04/id/1043330/

The Secretary must issue an ETS in situations where employees are exposed to a “grave danger” and immediate action is necessary to protect those employees from such danger. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1); Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1983)…In demonstrating whether OSHA had shown that an ETS is necessary, the Fifth Circuit considered whether OSHA had another available means of addressing the risk that would not require an ETS. Asbestos Info. Ass’n, 727 F.2d at 426 (holding that necessity had not been proven where OSHA could have increased enforcement of already-existing standards to address the grave risk to workers from asbestos exposure).

Although Congress waived the ordinary rulemaking procedures in the interest of “permitting rapid action to meet emergencies,” section 6(e) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(e), requires OSHA to include a statement of reasons for its action when it issues any standard. Dry Color Mfrs., 486 F.2d at 105-06 (finding OSHA’s statement of reasons inadequate). By requiring the agency to articulate its reasons for issuing an ETS, the requirement acts as “an essential safeguard to emergency temporary standard-setting.” Id. at 106. However, the Third Circuit noted that it did not require justification of “every substance, type of use or production technique,” but rather a “general explanation” of why the standard is necessary. Id. at 107. ETSs are, by design, temporary in nature. Under section 6(c)(3), an ETS serves as a proposal for a permanent standard in accordance with section 6(b) of the OSH Act (permanent standards), and the Act calls for the permanent standard to be finalized within six months after publication of the ETS. (Emphasis added).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/have-fun-defending-the-emergency-osha-rule-in-court/