Sean Hannity Show - Federal Mandate on Masks - December 28th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 28, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show

33:01

Federal Mandate on Masks - December 28th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
	So much fun to be with you guys during this holiday week.
	How are you?
	I am Monica Crowley in today for Sean.
	Big thanks to him for having me guest host for him today.
	And also thanks to Linda, Jason, and Katie, who are an amazing support staff for this show.
	So thank you so much.
	Our number, 800 941 Sean, that's 800 941 7326 if you want to get in on the conversation.
	Well, we've got a lot to get to.
	I want to talk here about uh where we are in this pandemic, Biden's unconstitutional vaccine mandates.
	Later this hour, we're going to talk to the great attorney, Harmid Dylan, who is amazing.
	She's got a client, the Daily Wire that's challenging uh the private sector OSHA vaccine mandate.
	There's another one that's focused on uh healthcare facilities.
	So they've consolidated both of those cases, and they will be in front of the Supreme Court at the end of next week.
	So we will talk to Harmeat about what we can expect.
	And I've got a really important question for her that I haven't seen out there yet about the constitutionality of this stuff.
	Uh, so I'm dying to ask her, and you're not gonna want to miss that.
	Also, later in the show, you know, a lot of us are very happy this time of year and celebrating, but a lot of us uh are depressed and a lot of us have anxiety, and a lot of us uh have a lot of issues this time of year, particularly our military veterans.
	So later in the show, we're gonna talk to the founder of Operation Restored Warrior about his tremendous organization that intervenes with our most at risk military veterans, those who are suicidal and emotionally and spiritually broken, and how they're really saving a lot of lives of our military vets.
	So all that and more coming straight up.
	800-941-7326.
	All right, let's talk about this pandemic.
	Um, so I was at the Treasury Department when the pandemic uh blew up.
	And I told you at the beginning of the show about uh how the Chinese sent a delegation to the White House.
	I was in the East Room when they signed the phase one trade deal with China, which was another extraordinary accomplishment by President Trump.
	Nobody thought it could be done.
	He did it.
	They came for that signing ceremony.
	It was like January 8th or 10th uh of 2020.
	They came and spread germs all over the place.
	Then Davos happened, uh late Jul uh late uh January 2020, um, where the Chinese sent a delegation of 350 people.
	Uh by the way, there were some reports that the Chinese got a pandemic exception in the trade deal.
	Um, and they wanted to keep all of the the pandemic stuff quiet until they could get everything they wanted, and they did.
	Then they went to Davos, coughed over everybody in Davos, and then went back to Beijing and were shutting down cities left and right.
	And now here we are, um, well into the second year of this, going on the third year of this, and the insanity just keeps coming.
	I will say, being in the Trump administration in March of 2020, when all hell was breaking loose, that was a very difficult time because nobody knew what this virus was.
	Nobody had ever seen it before.
	It was a novel coronabot virus, brand new, and it's running wild around the world.
	Well, when nobody knew how this virus was going to behave, of course, everybody was concerned.
	Was it the Ebola where you're dead in 72 hours because you bleed out?
	Or was it uh a more extreme flu?
	Nobody knew.
	So, of course, every precaution had to be taken.
	And politically, you've got to understand Trump was in uh he was in a very, very tough spot.
	A rock and a hard place.
	What do you do?
	Nobody knows what this virus is or how it's gonna behave in human beings.
	So he took some very bold and decisive action, shut down travel and shut down the U.S. economy, which had never been done before.
	And he says that was his toughest decision of his presidency.
	And believe me when I tell you, that is true.
	But here we are, almost two years later.
	We know how the virus behaves.
	In fact, the virus is mutating into a far weaker form than it originally started, or even the delta variant.
	And now there's research showing that this Omicron variant, um, not only is it basically the common cold, okay, but it's neutralizing the delta variant.
	So we're in pretty good shape here as far as pandemics go.
	And it looks like we're getting to endemic phase or pretty soon.
	Why?
	Because people are either vaccinated or they've got natural immunity.
	Of course, no one is focused on natural immunity because there's no money to be made in natural immunity.
	Mother Nature doesn't get a cut.
	God doesn't get a cut.
	But the pharmaceutical companies do with endless vaccines.
	By the way, did you see the story?
	It came out uh yesterday, I think, and it's in the New York Times.
	So, I mean, it must be true.
	Um, the New York Times is reporting that uh as Israel is now getting ready to launch their fourth shot.
	You didn't realize you were signing up for the shot of the month club, did you?
	The fourth shot in Israel.
	But now there's some data to suggest that that there is a point of diminishing returns with this stuff, and that the more shots you get, you might actually be uh debilitating your own immune system a little bit to confront other coronaviruses, including variations of this one.
	So more may not be better.
	There's so much that we don't know.
	It's uh including about these um therapeutics and and where this whole thing is going, it is madness, but that's not stopping the left from going full dictator, even at this late date, where people have just had enough, they're over it, they know how to deal with it, personal responsibility, take whatever precautions you deem necessary or or what you desire to do for yourself and your family.
	You do that, you make your personal health decisions, and then let's live our lives.
	But according to the left, no, that's not possible because this is not about the virus, and this is not about public health.
	It is only and pretty much always about uh power and control for them over you.
	That's all that this is.
	Bill de Blasio, oh my God, he cannot get out fast enough.
	I am here in New York.
	I am telling you I'm a prisoner in my own hometown.
	It is it is totalitarianism.
	This is fascism that's going on, and not just in New York, in Chicago, in Boston, in LA, in the blue states where you have blue cities, we have the march of totalitarianism, and this should frighten everybody.
	This is separate and distinct from the the conversation about the pandemic.
	We have cities in America that are now basically under fascist rule.
	Everybody should be concerned about this, whether or not you live in a blue state, whether or not you live in one of our cities.
	Our cities are in collapse, and it is because of this insane fascism.
	So de Blasio's uh private business vaccine mandate went into effect yesterday, and uh, you know, businesses are crying out, they're going, oh my gosh, you know, all if you have a hundred and more employees, that's the federal one.
	In New York City, private businesses um have to have everybody vaccinated, all of their employees have got to be vaccinated, otherwise they have to work off-site or be fired.
	I mean, this is incredible uh fascism here.
	So that went into effect yesterday, but he's leaving in three days.
	Leaving, he's gone in three days.
	So the question is is the new mayor, Eric Adams, going to uh keep this up.
	He has been um, he's been a little non-committal about whether or not he's going to enforce this insanity, which is continuing to crush our small businesses in New York City.
	Um, he's sort of been a little sketch about it.
	Um, he says he is concerned about that mandate, and he says he's gonna evaluate it when he comes in on January 1st.
	Um, but a sort of bad sign is he's gonna keep on De Blasio's health commissioner, Dr. Dave Shotsky, uh, through mid-March.
	So, ugh, okay.
	Uh that is not not a good thing.
	Uh, Also this week, the evil little garden gnome, Dr. Anthony Fauci has suggested vaccine mandates for domestic travel.
	So, in order to get on an airplane, go to another state, you're gonna have to be vaccinated.
	Now, he did walk it back a bit, and he was all like, oh, I didn't say that.
	Uh, I said it was on the table.
	That doesn't mean it's going to happen.
	I said it might happen, but it's not, I mean, he is just he is a little narcissistic fool who's probably suffering from Napoleon complex because he's about three feet tall.
	He has been running this whole thing into the ground from the very beginning on this disgusting power trip he's been on.
	He's dragged the country down with him, and instead of being thoughtful and responsible, he is also used at a lever as a lever for power and control.
	He is conflicted out all over the place.
	And yet he continues to be booked on CNN and MSNBC because they worship at the altar of the evil little garden gnome.
	Well, I think America deserves a second opinion.
	If you are given a diagnosis, don't you seek out a second opinion or even a third.
	You want to know what other doctors have to say and what they think.
	They might have a different read.
	But no, the left, the media, they all run to the altar of Fauci and only take his one opinion.
	If you are a dissenting doctor on any of this on the virus, on the vaccines, on the therapeutics, oh, you you've got to be deplatformed, you've got to be marginalized, you've got to be mocked, you've got to be doxxed.
	It is insane, and it is evil.
	It's evil.
	Now you've got, you know, the the um the virus is now mutated to basically the common cold.
	Um, I'm not minimizing what this is for people who are vulnerable, the elderly, the immunocompromised, the infirm.
	Um, you know, all of them should be uh taken care of properly to make sure that they get through this.
	But now we have all of these options.
	We've got all these medications, we know how to deal with this now.
	And yet, uh, you got evil garden gnomes still talking about, oh well, vaccine mandates and uh a fourth and eighteenth shot down the road, and you might need to get it again on an airplane.
	I mean, this is only and always about power and control.
	Viruses are gonna virus.
	They're viruses.
	They're going to spread.
	They're going to infect some people.
	They are going to make some people sick, and they are going to kill some people, unfortunately.
	That's what viruses do.
	Take it up with Mother Nature.
	But now that we know how this thing operates, we've got all these medications that we know mitigate symptoms.
	We've got to get on with it.
	It is enough already.
	And on top of it, we've had to deal with all of the lies that have come from Biden and Harris and Fauci and Walensky and the whole crop of people who are here to lead us through this unprecedented crisis.
	They have lied about so much from the very start, starting with Biden, who just days before the election in 2020 tweeted, quote, I'm not going to shut down the country.
	I'm not going to shut down the economy.
	I'm going to shut down the virus.
	Well, yeah, yeah, that is a lie.
	And it always was a lie.
	Why?
	Because viruses are going to virus.
	No government, no president can shut down a virus.
	It spreads.
	You can have government policies, as President Trump did, to try to mitigate the impact, both public health-wise and economically, to try to blunt the impact of something like this.
	But you also have to start with not just doing your best to protect the American people in the most responsible way, which this administration has not done, but you also have to root out the cause of it.
	You know, this administration is very into the root causes of everything, immigration and so on.
	How about the root cause of this pandemic?
	That is a once-in-a-century upheaval, not just for America, but for the world.
	How about the root causes of that?
	Oh, suddenly they're not interested in that.
	Because that leads right to Beijing, the Wuhan Lab, and Anthony Fauci, who was lied about his role in all of this.
	Again, conflicted out.
	You want to know how all this started?
	Oh, let's focus on the root causes of that Kamala.
	Let's focus on the root causes of that, Biden.
	But of course they can't, and they won't because they're compromised there too.
	800-941 Sean, that's 800-941-7326.
	If you want to get in on the talk, I am Monica Crowley in today for Sean Hannity.
	Hey there.
	I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
	You're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
	On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	Look, there is no federal solution.
	This gets solved at the state level.
	I'm looking at Governor Sununo on the board here.
	He talks about that a lot.
	And it ultimately gets down to where the rubber meets the road.
	And that's where the patient is in need of help or preventing the need for uh help.
	If Trump had said there is no federal solution to COVID, we'd be on impeachment number 23.
	I'm Monica Crowley in today for Sean Hannity, 800941.
	Sean, 800941-7326.
	Well, um, I want to hit the phones and and just I want to continue on the pandemic thing, but I know a lot of you have some very strong opinions.
	Matt in Ohio, how are you?
	Hi, Monica.
	I'm doing good.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Just really quick.
	When's Fauci going to be held accountable for lying to Congress?
	As I pretty sure my ears heard in his exchange with uh Rand Paul that he was lying to Congress.
	How do we get him out of his position?
	Yes.
	Well, it's a great question, Matt.
	Thank you.
	Um, do not hold your breath.
	And it's not because Fauci didn't lie, he did.
	Uh, it's not that he shouldn't be held accountable, he should.
	But the problem is we still have a two-tier justice system, and we've got it's not hypocrisy in this country, it's hierarchy.
	So will we all moan about hypocrisy?
	Yeah, there's hypocrisy everywhere.
	It's meaningless at this point.
	It's hierarchy.
	And Fauci is in the political hierarchy, the ruling class, and therefore he's always protected, and I really doubt he will be held accountable, unfortunately.
	I hope I'm wrong.
	800 941 Sean, I am Monica Crowley in today for Sean Hannity, Hermite Dylan on the other side about the Supreme Court case.
	I am Monica Crowley in today for Sean.
	Thank you so much for joining us during this holiday week.
	Our number here is 800-941 Sean.
	That's 800-941-7326.
	If you want to jump on, talk to me, get in on the conversation.
	We are trying to locate Harmie Dylan because I've got a lot of questions about the pandemic case, the vaccine mandate case that is going before the U.S. Supreme Court next Friday, January 7th.
	Even though the mandates are supposed to kick in on January 4th next week.
	The Supremes have decided that they will hear oral arguments on this next week.
	So a lot of people expect that they are going to strike this down, which would be a godsend, although I trust nothing these days.
	I don't know about you, but since every institution in America has been corrupted by the left, by the hierarchy that I mentioned before the break, by the ruling class, just completely corrupted by politics and the left-wing agenda to remake the country.
	Even the Supreme Court, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I'm hoping that they can see their way to uh clearly to overturning these mandates and making sure that private businesses can go about their business without this kind of unconstitutional nonsense coming at them on vaccine mandates, which uh then they don't make any sense.
	I mean, masks marginal, uh, the vaccines do not stop in infection, do not stop transmission, what is the point of a mandate?
	People who are vaxxed uh all the way through, boosted and everything, are carrying the virus, spreading the virus, getting it again multiple times in some cases.
	So to mandate this is nonsense.
	It's certainly not science, it's only politics, it's only power, it's only control.
	That's what all of this is.
	So I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will see to it to overturn this.
	I I did want to ask Hermita, and if we can uh reach her, I will pose this question to her.
	But it's something that I have not heard anybody else talking about.
	Certainly uh there are some dissenting doctors out there like Dr. Simone Gold and Peter McCullough and others who are raising critical issues that should be addressed.
	And if everybody else, like Fauci and Walensky are really uh confident in their positions about what they've been telling the public, they should have no problem answering some of these questions.
	Uh, but they just don't want to deal with it because, well, for whatever reason, I think you can put the pieces together.
	Um, but there is one legal question that um I I, you know, I haven't heard anybody really address, and that is this.
	And if we do get her meat, I will ask her.
	The question is this.
	So a lot of what the conversation has been about these mandates has really uh hinged on the precedent.
	Oh, pardon me.
	Pardon me.
	Um, the precedent of the Jacobson decision, which went to the Supreme Court in 1905, and that decision held that states could enact compulsory vaccination to stop smallpox from spreading in the community.
	So the Supreme Court said, okay, in 1905, when smallpox was spreading, that states could really demand they could force vaccination in the interest of protecting public health.
	But that decision was based on the definition of vaccine that says a vaccine stops infection and transmission.
	Hence the whole justification of public health, right?
	This vaccine does neither.
	It does not stop infection and it does not stop transmission.
	And in fact, the CDC changed the definition of vaccine.
	I don't know if you know this.
	But when it became clear that these mRNA vaccines were not doing what a traditional vaccine does, which is stop infection and transmission, the CDC went and changed the definition of vaccine to something like simply mitigate symptoms and is a therapeutic, something like that.
	So it doesn't have to stop infection and transmission to qualify as a quote-unquote vaccine.
	So given that, given that these shots are therapeutics, um, can we still use Jacobson as a precedent here?
	Because it really doesn't seem to apply to these shots.
	Can the government force you to take a therapeutic?
	This is uh seems to me, and again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be a huge legal question.
	They're hanging so much on this 1905 precedent, but the terms of these shots and the definition of vaccine has been now changed.
	So what are we really looking at here?
	I mean, it simply doesn't feel like the Jacobson decision should be a good enough or or applicable precedent.
	If you're a lawyer out there and you can answer that for me and for the audience, I'd love to hear from you.
	800-941 Sean, that's 800 941-7326.
	Meanwhile, um in South Africa, do we have Harmine?
	Okay.
	We're gonna have an abbreviated conversation with Armee Dylan.
	Can you bring her up, please?
	Um, Harmid, I am so glad that you're here.
	And of course, of course, Harmid Dylan is the founder of Dylan Law Group and the Liberty Center.
	So you can support her very important legal and civil rights work by visiting Liberty Center.org.
	And Harmeen, I'm so glad that you're here.
	We've got an abbreviated time with you, but uh I wanted you to sort of get into where we are on these Supreme Court cases that are going to be argued next Friday, January 7th in front of the court.
	Yes, well, thank you, Monica.
	Uh sorry it's an abbreviated time.
	These are very important cases.
	And the procedural posture here with these challenges to the various federal COVID mandates that the Biden administration has imposed on us, is that in the lower court, two of them have been successful.
	That is the challenges.
	So right now, the uh mandate on facilities that receive Medicare funding is enjoyed, as well as the one on federal government contractors.
	The one where I represent the Daily Wire, is the one where the Fifth Circuit entered an injunction.
	All the cases were transferred to the Sixth Circuit.
	The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction.
	So right now, unless the Supreme Court steps in after that hearing next week, we are looking at a federal mandate on all employers of over 100 people.
	So that's tens of millions of Americans.
	And it's many employers like my client, the Bailey Wire, that does not want to impose medical choices on its employees.
	So the stakes could not be higher, not just for this one issue, but for the right of a government agency without due process, without proper notice and comment, without a scientific basis to mandate medical treatment on workers as a condition of employment.
	This is tyrannical.
	We believe it is unconstitutional, it is against statute, and it is completely a violation of our human rights as American citizens.
	And so that is what is at stake here, Monica.
	I do feel that the current court is well composed with different elements to carefully consider these issues.
	And we feel like the Fifth Circuit cost is right.
	And if the court simply proceeds with that reasoning, and of course, adding some new facts like the Omicron virus seems to be resistant to the very vaccines that are being imposed, uh, we feel like the correct result should be continuing that injunction and striking down these mandates.
	So, Harmide, before you joined us, and thank you for that thumbnail sketch of where we are and how we got here.
	Before you joined us, I was laying out um a scenario, and I'm not an attorney, so I would love for your expert analysis on this.
	But my understanding is that the government and and the media and so on, when they're making these legal arguments, they're hanging a lot of this on the precedent of the Jacobson decision of 1905, uh, which held that states could enact compulsory vaccination to stop smallpox from spreading and protect public health.
	But that decision is based on a definition of vaccine that says a vaccine stops infection and transmission.
	This vaccine does neither.
	And I was telling the audience that in fact the CDC actually changed the definition of vaccine away from that to something like, you know, just mitigates the symptoms and is a therapeutic and doesn't have to stop infection and transmission.
	So given that, can those who are arguing for the mandates, can they still use Jacobson as a precedent, given that the shots are therapeutic?
	I mean, it doesn't seem to apply here if you go by the Jacobson and the traditional uh definition of what a vaccine is.
	These shots no longer fit that definition.
	Well, the I I would I would probably approach it a different way.
	The Jacobson case does not in any way depend on the definition of what is a vaccine.
	That simply has to be that is the fact of that case.
	But you could substitute some other medical um imperative that has to do with what we call the police power to stop the spread of a disease.
	And I think a court would still uphold it.
	In fact, Jacobson has been used to uphold all kinds of measures that I challenged in the courts, including shutdowns of businesses, shutdowns of churches, shutdowns of the beaches.
	All of these things have been um have been you know justified by Jacobson.
	The distinction of Jacobson is that Jacobson applies to the police power of the state.
	It cannot be used to support federal police power.
	Federal police power is very limited under our constitution.
	And by police power I don't mean people dressed up as police, I mean the power to regulate public order, and that is largely reserved under our system of constitutional separation between the states and the federal government to the state.
	So some of the same arguments, Monica, that we're using in the Supreme Court against this federal COVID vaccine mandate, they wouldn't necessarily fly at the state level.
	I think there are substantial issues, of course, with mandating this vaccine uh that isn't you know, frankly, effective, even as a therapeutic one would argue on the current uh virus, but we don't know.
	We just don't have longitudinal studies.
	By contrast, over time, a lot of the other vaccines that have been required for schools and other issues like polio and others like that have been well tested, and you know, people are quite readily signing up to take them.
	And so these are some of the distinctions here.
	And and by the way, under our current system and you know, many Supreme Court cases that have happened, if the uh if OSHA had gone through the normal notice and comment period and allowed people to weigh in and and you know checked all the boxes, we might not have some of the same arguments that we do.
	But this whole situation has been so fast moving, and the government has so much run roughshod over the normal procedures that would otherwise apply, as well as making up a new power for OSHA, which is mandating medical treatment for workers and classifying workers as some kind of a toxic substance in the workplace.
	You know, we might have uh much less to argue about, but I think as it stands, we have a lot to argue about on the constitutional, statutory, and administrative procedural as well as factual basis.
	So with all of that going for us, I feel like we're really poised well for the Supreme Court ruling.
	Oh, from your lips to God's ears, tar meet.
	You know, given the gravity of this and and how many people will be affected by it, tens of millions.
	Why is the Supreme Court only allowing one hour for oral arguments?
	Um so out of all the cases, including the one that our clients uh asked us to file in the Sixth Circuit, and that we also filed an emergency petition in the Supreme Court, those are many cases.
	I think there are probably 14 or 15 right now in the Supreme Court on the one issue that you and I are discussing.
	And so I think there's a separate argument of an hour on the other two mandates where the government is seeking relief and we're seeking release on the other one.
	But the court has narrowed it to two types of buckets of plaintiffs, and this is for efficiency.
	So one is the state attorneys general who are challenging the mandate on a host of reasons, including the ones I mentioned, but also that police power issue that is uh you know reserved to the state.
	So in other words, don't uh impinge on our powers, and the other is one large coalition group of multiple plaintiffs that in turn represent thousands and thousands of American businesses.
	So they figure in one hour they're going to hear from basically 75% of America in one sales group.
	So I think it is efficient.
	I am disappointed not be able to argue.
	Our client has between 100 and 200 employees.
	So uh I suspect that went into the consideration of how many uh people get to argue and who they are.
	So that said, we are cheering for them 100 percent, And in addition to those two parties arguing this case, there are dozens and dozens of amicus briefs that are going to be filed pro and con.
	I mean I get a request for an amicus brief every few minutes that seems in my email and so we've been working throughout the holidays to uh talk to those parties who want to file briefs and they're they're pretty much going to be allowed to do it in my opinion.
	Yes.
	Okay, good.
	And just finally uh very quickly Harmid, how soon do you expect a decision after the arguments uh given this very quick timing and given the fact that the court is clearly aware that the uh mandate itself is supposed to go into effect the following week I suspect that the uh uh that law clerks have been told to cancel their holiday plans and forget about that New Year's Eve party cancel Santa and they're probably already working on the opinion the dueling opinion I rather suspect
	that uh if we're going to have a rapid ruling after the hearing.
	Well Harmid I I can't tell you how much we appreciate your expertise and your time today.
	Hermeet Dylan thank you so much.
	I'm Monica Crowley back in a flash you want smart political talk without the meltdowns we got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations thoughtful try to be funny grounded and no panic.

▲