We are the drain the swamp people

Devastating news a “significant loss” to Trump

CALSIFIED MISTAKES BY TRUMP CITED AS REASON

Anonymous potential donor says “Trump will never up his downside the way he is going”

“Millions for defense. And somewhat less for tribute” said not to be a good fundraising slogan.

A PAC can definitely get more attention shutting down then starting up depending on the mendacity of the reporters. Just maybe such could be a new click-bait technique useful to do a number on a given target. How about:

Pledged donors to Friends of Puppies and Trump PAC with goal of $50 million pull out when they discover Trump has no pets

Of course we are having a little fun with yowling strident pro-Trump publications and supporters trying to declare the primary over. Even when the gist of a conservative publication’s story was reasonably objective (if people went beyond the headline) the come-on for some was a grossly biased distortion. One such was this one at Townhall which was up for awhile: “DeSantis $50 Million Super Pac Shuts Down Operations Due to ‘Rookie Mistakes’ .  It parroted the press release of the totally failed grift which having been repudiated by DeSantis from the get go — shut down with a BS statement. Such operations we caution may move on to other grifts.

The truth is DeSantis-supportive pacs have raised more money and have more in the bank than any other candidate-supportive pacs including of late those for Trump. And most of the money raised for Trump might be going to his legal defense, shortchanging everything else that needs to be done to win the general (his nomination should not be assumed).

The further truth is there was never $50 million,  that is what the grandiose grifters said they were going to raise. According to objective reports the outfit only raised a few thousand dollars and had nothing in the bank in its closing report to the FEC.

In PAC world anyone can create a political action committee and grift off a cause  or candidacy. Even announce an ‘intention’ that is totally pulled out of their backside. Sometimes only a small percentage makes into actual program expenses.

Sarah Arnold writing at Townhall initially lead with such a distorted headline and lede  even though the body of the article was more truthful. To their credit Townhall later completely changed the headline and appropriately changed the tone of the story as well.  Townhall originally led with:

“DeSantis $50 Million Super Pac Shuts Down Operations Due to ‘Rookie Mistakes’

After many complaints in the comment section it was changed to:

Grifter ‘Scam’ Pac Shuts Down Operations.

(note there is a disclaimer regarding the revision in the linked article as it now appears)

By the way, the link associated with Liberty Daily the conservative news amalgamator which appears in the format of the Drudge Report of old, also employed such a huge distortion. Many of their links have rather juvenile click bait come-ons.

0

0

“It must be white people’s fault” and in great part it is — current white liberals and their equally clueless Hawaiian “natives” (a me ka poʻe Hawaiʻi ʻike ʻole)*

Our condolences to all the victims of this tragedy.

We understand the loss of life was the result of a perfect storm of vulnerability and the fire (however started) advancing at 60 miles and hour from dry winds across a landscape where inhabitants had hardly anywhere to go in time.

We have over the years referred to Stilton Jarlsberg posts (Stilton’s Place) as among our favorites in all of commentary- land.  His take on the situation, informed by experience on the islands, is instructive in his classic style.  Read it here.

One of his commenters offered an analysis that is consistent with climate authorities  we have read and we think likely spot on:

John the Econ said…

I’m not sure which is worse: “Laid-back” governance or “We’re gonna fix everything!” governance.

My usual retort is “You guys can’t even manage pavement. I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are capable of addressing the bigger problems.”

As to the Maui fires: Over the weekend I took note that the media was beating the “Climate Crisis!” drum, as in “Your SUV and first world living is responsible for this! Shame on you!”.

Actually, humans were somewhat responsible. But it wasn’t the climate. It was the decline of agriculture on the islands that has allowed formerly managed acreage to go fallow to be taken over with invasive grasses that grow quickly when it rains, but dry out and become highly flammable within hours of any dry spell. And as @Stilton points out, this has been identified as a problem for some time now, but nobody had taken any steps to address it.

Of course, there is also the weather, but it has nothing to do with spewing out CO2. Last year, we had a volcano that spewed literally trillions of gallons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. Whereas CO2 is a mediocre greenhouse gas, water vapor is a very potent one. In fact, last year NASA predicted rising temperatures due to this, which of course the media immediately flushed down the inconvenient memory hole.

It’s also an El Nino year, where the Pacific ocean belches its stored up heat. Oh, and we’re headed towards the peak of a very active solar cycle.

But until Progressives figure out a way to hold you responsible for volcanoes, El Nino, or the Sun, they’ll continue to harass you over our gas stoves.

August 14, 2023 at 9:47 AM

John the Econ’s comments were quickly accentuated by:

Drew458 

A little extension of what John the Econ said, re: invasive grasses. When the fires first started, I read an article at CNN that essentially blames white people for this. See, the big bad greedy destructive capitalist patriarchy came to Hawaii and planted sugar cane, coconuts, pineapples etc. When the market for these things dried up, the white farmers left, and the bad “introduced” grasses moved in. No mention was made that all of this nice well cared for farmland could have been used for local crops by the slothful natives.

*Having a little fun with Google translate

0

0

All of the top Republican contenders are now saying Trump lost. 

As a political calculation DeSantis (who we favor for the nomination at this time as events unfold) saying Trump lost was in our judgement unnecessary and impolitic especially given that 68% of Republicans believe with plenty of evidence including their own eyes (D’Souza videos and book and more recent revelations) that Biden “won” the 2020 by fraud.

We wish DeSantis would have responded with something like our basic contention about the election, a rendition of which follows in italics below.  Keep in mind any statement at this stage ought to be intended for Republican voters even if with some artful vagaries but with a definitive end to the discussion.

in retrospect it is apparent that the election was fraught with illegalities and appearance of illegalities, sloppy or non existent signature voter verification processes, chain of custody issues, incongruous data dumps and anomalies, eye witness testimony to be investigated, and more, sufficient to justify pausing the election certification in relevant states pursuant to emergency judicial hearings on the evidence combined with forensic audits if necessary, prior to the final declaration of a winner in those states. That was not done and the republic would have been better served had political leadership insisted on it, Democrat and Republican together. But that ship has sailed. Returning to practical politics he might have gone on to say  . . . Regardless, at this point we are faced with the destruction wrought by the Biden Crime Family presidency and the question now is who is the best candidate to go forward unencumbered who can win in November and restore America’s economy,  protect the border, deal with China from a position of strength,  and reduce overreaching government as I have done in my state . . .

But DeSantis didn’t ask us nor any of the others and “the ship has sailed” for all of them  although maybe DeSantis has the most room to revise and extended his remarks. Here is what we have so far regarding quotes about election 2020 from the most notable contenders. They are pulled from links in a WaPo article in no particular order:

Nikki Haley

Baier asked Haley during their interview whether she believed the 2020 election results were legitimate.
“Do I think Joe Biden is the legitimate president?” she said. “Yes. He’s a bad one at that.”

Tim Scott 

“I do not believe the election was stolen,” Scott said in response to a question at a town hall event here. “There was cheating, but was the election stolen? There’s a difference. I think [in] every election there’s cheating.”

Chris Christie

It is noteworthy that here Christie is criticizing DeSantis for being reticent about definitively saying Biden won

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, look, I still don’t think he (DeSantis) answered it. Right? He lost. Well, we all know that, as a matter of law, he lost the election. Right? 

The deeper question and the one that I think he is dodging is, do you believe it was a full and fair election? That’s really the question. And with respect to the interviewer, I think she let him off the hook. I mean, in the end, did he lose? Of course, he lost, and I believe he

 lost because he lost in a full and fair election.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Also noteworthy is that Ramaswamy is said to be the number two pick of many Trump supporters

Vivek Ramaswamy, It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again.
I’m referring, of course, to Donald Trump.

Asa Hutchinson

We know, why bother, but here goes:

“First of all, I don’t believe the election was stolen, and I respect the results,”

We were initially chagrinned, and still are to an extent, hearing DeSantis’ unprepared, clumsy kind of rambling comments about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Trump voters never got their day in court and DeSantis should realize that many of them perceive the nomination and general election as their chance to make the case. Not understanding and accommodating that sentiment was why we say his response was a missed opportunity and does not help his chances.

That said, it does not seem that any of the Republican candidates except Christie want to spend their time fighting 2020 (Christie is in tune with praising the result) when it is most important to deal with 2024.  And with what is coming out about the Biden Crime Family, Biden is well on his way to delegitimizing himself. 

We understand that DeSantis may be thinking that saying that 2020 was rigged or acknowledging the evidence of rigging and the appropriateness of a timely, even if emergency, process to verify evidence etc, which was never entertained by the system, would be to say Trump deserves election this time around. But putatively wronged in 2020 does not make Trump the best candidate in 2024.  There were many internal Trump administration dynamics that were problematic then and we are not confident have been resolved.

But back to the current situation.

Assuming the enemy, violating the rules of war, cheated in earnest and blockaded and later severely damaged Battleship Trump — that does not make Battleship Trump the best vessel to lead the next battle. However it is reason to authenticate the matter with deliberate speed and if “war criminals” are found send them to jail. But the decisive 2024 battle needs to be addressed first. Everything needs to be about winning in 2024. Getting to the bottom of 2020 is actually secondary given the state of emergency. Fighting the last war is not the best strategy.

We are not convinced Trump is the best candidate to win in 2024 or even to get to the bottom of 2020. He does not have an unassailable record, seriously so in several areas we have elaborated on in other posts.

Trump supporters insist he has learned a lot. OK, and others can’t learn from his mistakes or what he was up against? We are not convinced Trump has learned enough positive until he is drawn out on the various subjects and that requires debating others. And keep in mind ours is not properly a government entirely of executive orders.

We need the best person who can win and smoothly perform the extensive governmental house cleaning that needs to happen. We saw that the star of The Apprentice is a lousy personnel chief. But we have not seen adequate evidence he has learned thoroughly enough not to be his own worst enemy.

We believe Governor DeSantis has in the crucible of Florida exhibited far more acumen in all that is necessary to successfully do what needs to be done.

Trump double taps his foot

Trump, while a good man otherwise, has exhibited unbecoming arrogance and petulance on two matters that deserve to be in the first case onerous and in the second disqualifying for Republicans wanting a ballot position.

First off — not debating the other candidates should be treated as an affront to Republicans. Trump is toying with not doing so. His expressed attitude is to the effect ~~ Why should I when I am so far ahead~~.  Our response  is that: because half the party is not in your corner for the nomination and failing to debate will not improve your standing with them and is an insult to the party and its functions. I think it smacks of Biden hiding in the basement avoiding real confrontation even if Trump does get out and give basically canned rallies.

Furthermore Biden may not be the actual Dem nominee and we need to see who performs the best with today’s issues and what Trump has learned. Which candidate is more incisive on the attack against what the Democrats have done and expressing what he or she will do.

The clincher as to disqualifying someone for the party nomination as far as we are concerned is in refusing to pledge to support the nominee. If we remember correctly Trump played that game some back in 2016 although he did sign.  He has not signed a pledge as yet.  Toying the issue was unbecoming then but far worse now.

He could sign the pledge and be viable and still not debate, the latter stupid but not formally disqualifying in and of itself.

With regard to Trumps refusal to sign a pledge one must ask, who the heck does Trump think has any chance of winning the Republican nomination, that is so bad compared to a Democrat? Even Chris Christy or Asa Hutchinson for that matter, both impossible wins, would be better than any Democrat.

Even publicly toying with the idea tears it for us as it is insulting to the majority of Republicans. Does Trump think the Republican apparat has the inclination and will  actually fix the results, extending from his handpicked RNC Chair? The same apparat that in state after state organized to benefit all Republican candidates. How might that be done? Our message to Trump is we are not cheating Democrats so don’t imply it while pleading to be the party’s standard bearer. With his continuing demurral it seems he just wants to breed resentment and hurt party unity.  He is the only candidate who has not signed the pledge.

Refusing or being coy about not supporting the nominee if it does not go your way is the attitude ~~ I’ve been scorned (never mind that Trump as a matter of course in his 8 years as a politician unfairly scorns others) . . . and now I will take my ball home and the hell with the country~~.

To fulfill such a pledge he does not have to do anything other than say something to the effect ~~  I hope everyone votes for the Republican nominee ~~ and not act against that.

Or the refusal is an utter ego trip, used as a veiled threat to run as a third party candidate. There is no third party on the ballot in all the states that he could win with. There is no opportunity for any more to get on the ballot. It is politically insane. Even toying with the idea given the threat Democrats pose precludes Trump as thinking straight or being in line with the best interests of the country. It is rightly disqualifying.

0

0

Eaton Davenport plant on Hickory Grove Road. Rainbow, flag to lower right has been up for weeks beyond ‘pride’ month. Over the years the plant has changed hands from Bendix, to Litton , to Cobham to Eaton with passing defense contract buyouts.

It seems flying a “rainbow flag” for months does not make Eaton inclusive, just a harborage for ES&G management types intent on being as superficial and creepily offensive to orthodox believers as possible.

A properly functioning union there might say something on behalf of their members who find the implications of going to work under such a flag offensive such that doing so might infer agreement with the political movement claiming the flag. That is not something to be proud of.  

Such a union might grieve that differences in opinion from workers are stifled while corporate management blatantly foists theirs.  

As we suggest below, Eaton’s symbolization is selective, argumentative, and  not tolerant of cultural diversity. (more commentary follows the pictoral depictions of Eaton’s flag hypocrisy).

Do any Muslims work for Eaton? How do they or would they feel about going to work each day for a company so insensitive, so in your face as you enter the company’s front office portico that champions not merely a focused culturally unsettled cause in all its manifestations, but a celebration of a sexual license their religious teachings find abhorrent?   One that for example insists on “drag story hour” for children promoted in local publicly funded institutions where you see the same flag.

The “rainbow flag”  is the recognized in-your-face symbol of not merely “gay” tolerance, the flag of the United States and its laws represents that, but a political movement. We will consider any rebuttals or demurrals from the company as regards that point as authentic when they hoist for example, some of the following flags as prominently and for the same extended periods of time.

Here are some flags that represent a cause or “constituencies” that many of their employees may well hold dear. When do these flags and movements get their weeks in the sun at Eaton?

Just wondering why they have not run this one up the pole. Do Black lives not matter at Eaton?

The Tawheed flag commonly used to represent Islam. Certainly Muslims have experienced discrimination in this country. Where is Eaton’s sense of fairness?

Or this Juneteenth Flag. But then maybe they did. If not it is unforgivable

This lovely batch of sloganeering touches a number of leftist politically correct bases. Why “no human is illegal” might even attract Eaton some unlawful non-citizens. If not to  work at the plant but perhaps to care for the management elite’s lawns

Sheesh, where’s the love.  Why not fly this thin blue “police, firefighter, soldier” flag.

The not common enough (less than the rainbow flag) thin blue line flag supporting police service is missing in action at Eaton!

Christian symbol. We will bet this flag will never be flown at Eaton. Way too controversial.

Vegan Flag. We suspect they have a LOT of vegans working there in management. But darn it there is not one vegan restaurant in the west end.Maybe flying this would help the Door Dash folks know what door to deliver the tofu delicacies.

Well they are making a lot of money off that war thing in Ukraine so maybe Eaton should show how brave and in your face they can be on behalf of  Ukraine now that they have exited Russia

Air Force Flag. Now for such a good customer flying this flag would seem apropos. But we guess Eaton has decided there is “no room on the pole” for supporting one of its best customers

Now for this one — the rumor is Eaton is just shopping for a taller pole. They do a lot of business there and have one or more plants.  Deployed properly this flag could really earn them some “international’ creds. The left that Eaton management caters to would not object. Now  Red China would never entertain the rainbow flag but Eaton is happy to do business with them while Xe laughs as the whole rainbow thing hurts this country’s military readiness.

The above selections are just a sampling of the flags of a variety of causes or viewpoints some of which are certainly less controversial than the gay “rights” rainbow flag.  Eaton does not bother with flying those flags. But understand well, we agree and support that a company is not obligated to.

But by prominently displaying a rainbow flag, with its loaded symbolization,  and not providing a similar or alternative venue for a competing viewpoint is discrimination. Private employers are allowed to do that. We do not object overall to that right but we do believe Eaton shows lack of judgement and evenhandedness  because getting involved in the political culture wars forces at least some workers to cringe and even consider the company hostile to their religious beliefs. We freely admit to our own prejudices that we would applaud companies  supportive of traditional values along the lines of some of the “flags” and movements identified above.

All that said, perhaps there are some elements of this ES&G crapola that might be actionable by employees. Consider:

In order to hold their jobs at Eaton it requires some employees to deal with the pall cast over them of a noxious philosophy at odds with their religious upbringing. Flying such a flag is a culturally provocative political statement because of its recognized associations and manifestations in public policy which an employee may find anathema.

Are Eaton employees allowed an accommodation to compensate for the sacriligious insult dealt them embodied in such a flag and political movement?  If the flag is considered merely passive are employees allowed the ability to “passively” disagree on sight by showing their religious views  either on another flagpole equally prominent or to wear a garment, hat, or pin showing their disagreement with the rainbow propaganda?

As far as we know they are not. Speaking up about such things is rare and is what management counts on while preening for kudos from the left. Plus they are protected in their speech and employees are not.

Evenhandedness in the flag propaganda are not accommodated as far as we can tell in passing by their facility. Eaton appears to be rigid and non-accommodating to alternative religious and philosophical beliefs based on the history of its flag policy.

Perhaps these “safe” workplace environments “under the rainbow” claimed by ESG reprobates are for example only for transgenders and not straight women who are uncomfortable and understandably might not feel safe with a biological man in the bathroom.  Castigating the fear does not overwhelm the cultural fact. Now if all bathrooms at Eaton are single use facilities with a lock and no gang dressing areas then that criticism is abated but not the issue of propagandizing employees (the rainbow flag).

To turn the supposed justification coin on Eaton: in spite of their pretense the Eaton propagandistic flag policies reflecting the religion of secularization can cause people to hide their true selves less they be ostracized in various ways by management.  Certainly for many the fear of speaking up pertains. It seems that with such companies a man who believes he is a woman is free to flaunt his feelings and demonstrate through garb those feelings, which Eaton management will ignore or accommodate, but orthodox Christian or Muslim views to the contrary in this country they will not.

Again management is free to impose its blatant or subtle anti-religious propaganda on campus, and as corporate policy, to deny such speech to others on campus, cultural denigration be damned.  And in all this it should be well understood that we are not advocating discrimination in hiring or firing,  only the propagandizing without recourse of  cultural matters that companies should leave to the political process lest they be politicized and reap that whirlwind.  We think it stupid for companies to get on the ESG bandwagon often against interests and join the culture wars (witness Bud Light).

Eaton management is not brave.  If any virtue entered into it they would be more interested in being even-handed and not propagandize against or limit passive  orthodox Christian expression as they do. But by the standards they pretend to exhibit here they are cowards elsewhere. Try hoisting that flag outside their property and plants in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya, China. Here they get to attend fine cocktail parties and extol their participation in an agenda of cultural denigration, in Muslim world they would likely have it torn down as an offense and be the scene of protests.

There is more than enough expression of tolerance in the colors of the flag of the United States.

So while we recognize the limited legal right for the company to engage in propagandizing we mostly object to the arbitrary ESG assholes fighting the culture wars on behalf of the left.

So the question arises whutareyagunnadoaboutit.

You mean besides vent?

We would suggest do what the left would do. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”* In doing that consult a labor law attorney and check on the extent of the protected right in the workplace to organize union and non-union members as to labor and workplace conditions which might include wearing organizing paraphernalia.

For example perhaps a labor organizing pin or perhaps t-shirt focused on ending a certain workplace condition.  We believe the pin is “allowed” under the law to at least obliquely send a message beyond the particular objection. Check with a labor law attorney but advocacy of a work policy accommodation would seem to be a protected right under labor law. An example might be a pin that encourages adoption of a workplace accommodation right by the company and or union or an end to objectionable practices by either.

We believe such paraphernalia can contain a message or refer people to a fuller understanding of the arguments along with the call for even-handed treatment.  An action item such as inviting them to sign a petition to management and or the union is a labor organizing feature regarding workplace policies and issues.

Check on the parameters but it seems to us the legal protection of advocacy regarding a work-place condition does not require official union acceptance or that the messaging come from a union member. Indeed in this case a union could be a part of the problem given their notorious encompassing of all things Democrat Party.

It is our understanding that a pin with a union label or indicia that also has a candidate image or logo is protected. So politics is not an excuse for forbidding such advocacy. Associate the protest in terms of and aligned with workers rights.  The official union does not have to endorse or agree. It may well be that neither management or the union can stop such advocacy. Assuming that right,  if any intimidation or retaliation ensues then sue them.

The idea may take years to settle into something workable but in the meantime orthodox believers can make their point, demonstrate resistance to management or union nostrums,  and evangelize the reasoning. Ideally a union should embrace the matter but don’t hold your breath.

These pins and an accompanying organizational effort are mockups that might apply to a company that makes it a point to prominently fly a rainbow flag while denying workers the right to prominently symbolize their own belief. Other possibilities — better phraseology, designs, etc. no doubt abound.

0

0

SUPPORT OHIO’s 60% CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL

HELP A GROUP HELPING THE GOOD FIGHT – DETAILS BELOW

Ohio has a special election ballot question for voters on August 8. The proposal will require any amendment be passed by 60% of the electorate instead of the the current 50%.  For constitutional questions that seems eminently reasonable.

The interest of conservatives in protecting constitutional freedoms against well financed assaults on culture by leftists is manifest. While this question for many readers seems another state’s problem, those trying to protect the low threshold are liberals well financed by out of state interests intending to use the low threshold for their liberal power plays using unions, NGO’s, campus agitators, knee jerk Democrats, legacy and social media avenues virtually owned by them.

So given liberals current demeanor —  distain for what should be supermajority protections for basic rights the appropriateness of helping constitutionalists in Ohio help prevent such assaults is important. A 50% constitution does not seem like much of  a constitution or protection for basic rights.*

The effort is likely to be fought within a low turnout electorate.  Churches can properly play a critical roll in influencing such ballot questions.  The communication set forth below is from an effective organization focused on turnout among Catholics. However because the interest is non-secular we hope you will consider helping them help get the 60% proposal passed by kicking in $20 or more (follow the active links). If you know of another organization doing allied work there by all means  give to them. We happen to be on this groups e-mail list.  Time is of the essence.

Paid for by CatholicVote Ohio.   Update your email preferences or unsubscribe here. CATHOLICVOTE  |  PO Box 3310  |  Carmel, IN 46082  |  (317) 669-6127

* Should the 60% proposal fail it will invite conservatives to respond in kind with amendment after amendment proposal as that is what liberals are asking for. It is really not a good way to run a state.

0

0

The Biden clan scandal in about more than Humper Biden — it is about weaponized Democrat control of media and institutions. Here is a collection of evocative cartoons from Townhall media:

0

0

The Brownstone Institute published the following article by C.J. Baker, M.D. (who) is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

The publication offers this commentary under a creative license grant and is set forth below. The article is available at the Brownstone site by linking here. We find much to recommend in the article. Readers can find out more about the Brownstone Institute by linking here. Graphic is a VeritasPAC. com meme, not part of the article.

By Clayton J. Baker, MD writing at Brownstone Institute:

The uncritical, blind faith in vaccines is the preeminent sacred cow of modern medicine. (It happens to be its preeminent cash cow as well.) It is a quasi-religious, dogmatic article of conviction, rather than a sound scientific theory or an empirically-based clinical precept.

Vaccines have been controversial since their introduction centuries ago. Only in very recent history has there been a rigidly enforced orthodoxy of belief within the medical establishment that vaccines must be unanimously regarded as “safe and effective,” no questions asked.

Even more recent is the practice of smearing and labeling anyone questioning this doctrine as a heretic: an “anti-vaxxer.” In fact, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the earliest known use of that now-ubiquitous epithet was only in 2001. 

Religious faith has tremendous potential for good in society, but when it is misrepresented as science, its track record is miserable and deadly. “Safe and effective” is not scientific shorthand, or even an advertising slogan; it is a mantra. “Anti-vaxxer” is not a category of person, it is a charge of heresy. And just as vaccine critics are heretics, so the high priests of vaccines, the Faucis of the world, the people who in their own words “represent science,” are fanatics.

Does that really sound like science to you? Galileo, Semmelweis, and a few others might disagree.

Any honest person who lived through the COVID-19 era in the United States will acknowledge that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with its lengthy “alphabet soup” of agencies (CDC, NIH (with its NIAID), FDA (with its CBER), etc., etc.), promoted and repeated the “safe and effective” mantra regarding the COVID-19 vaccines throughout an era of intense public fear. 

Any honest person will also acknowledge that the mainstream media avidly repeated and amplified the “safe and effective” mantra and stoked the fear, all while ruthlessly attacking anyone questioning that same dogma, labeling them “anti-vaxxers,” or sometimes even “murderers.”

Little to no mention was made – or allowed – of the gigantic financial incentives and other entanglements these powerful entities have with the vaccine manufacturers, nor the trillions of dollars involved. 

Religious dogmas, especially those relentlessly inculcated by powerful forces under extreme conditions, are hard to break free from.

To readers who may know people caught in the rigid, dogmatic belief in the infallibility of vaccines, I offer the following 10 sentences.

Share them with friends, family, and colleagues who cannot seem to reconsider vaccine dogma, especially those with an uncritical view of the current vaccine schedules. Ask them to carefully read each of the 10 sentences below, one at a time, and ask themselves: does this sentence seem true or false to me? If it seems false, on what basis do I think it is false? Then move on to the next one and do the same.

(Some of the sentences are complex, but I am confident an intelligent layperson can understand them all.)

When they are finished with all 10 sentences, encourage your friends to ask themselves: 

• Do they truly believe that every child in the United States should receive 20 or more different vaccines before age 18? 
• Should vaccines ever be mandated? 
• Shouldn’t we, as an educated, free society, systematically review the official vaccine recommendations, and, just as we would do with Grandma’s overflowing pill box, reduce them to the truly necessary minimum?
• Shouldn’t we reassert the autonomy of patients over their own bodies?

Here is the trouble with vaccines, in 10 sentences:

1. Like “antibiotics,” “vaccines” are a large and diverse class of medicines, and as with all large classes of medicines, different products in the class work by different mechanisms, some being quite effective while others are ineffective, some being reasonably safe for appropriate human use while others are fraught with side effects and toxicities, and therefore to assume that any large class of medicines – including vaccines – is categorically “safe and effective,” is naïve, illogical, false, and dangerous.

2. While the full extent of vaccine toxicity is undetermined, it is a historical fact that numerous vaccines have been proven to be highly toxic and even deadly to patients, via multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, including: a) direct contamination of the vaccine (e.g. the Cutter Incident), b) disease caused by unintended, pathological immune response to the vaccine (e.g. Guillain–Barré syndrome caused by the swine flu vaccine), c) unintended contraction and/or transmission of the disease the vaccine was designed to prevent, caused by the vaccine itself (e.g. the current oral polio vaccine), and d) vaccine toxicity of unknown or uncertain cause (e.g. intestinal intussusception with the rotavirus vaccine, and fatal blood clots with the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine).

3. In fact, the known toxicity of vaccines is so well-established that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products.

4. Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023. 

5. Of the 21 vaccines on the 2023 CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, only a small minority (e.g. measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and HiB) are capable of providing genuine herd immunity, a fact that negates the common, population-based arguments for mandating the other vaccines, which comprise the sizable majority of the vaccines on the schedule.

6. The pharmaceutical industry has established an almost unimaginable degree of media control, institutional influence, and regulatory capture, via its funding of other entities, as it is a) the largest industry lobby in Washington, DC, b) the second largest industry in TV advertising, c) a major source of personal revenue for high-level HHS “alphabet soup” agency bureaucrats, many of whom hold patent and royalty rights on pharmaceutical products, d) a major funder of influential physician organizations (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics and prominent medical journals, and e) involved in payment-based incentivization of practicing physicians, who frequently receive monetary bonuses for high rates of vaccination in their patient panels.

7. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were developed and administered to the public a) much faster and with much less testing than any other vaccines on the market, b) under Emergency Use Authorization, c) utilizing a technological platform that had never seen commercial use before, and, despite generating reports of vaccine-related deaths and serious adverse events at much higher rates than traditional vaccines, and despite the fact that they have been removed from the pediatric market in multiple other developed countries, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have already been placed on the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, just a little over 2 years after their introduction to the public.

8. There has been no systematic public accounting by the CDC (or any of the HHS agencies) for the more than 35,000reported COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths and more than 1,500,000 reported COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse eventsreported as of July 7, 2023, to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), nor for the corresponding numbers of COVID vaccine-related deaths and adverse events reported to Eudravigilance (the European Union’s equivalent to VAERS), even as the CDC continues to strongly promote these vaccines for use, including placing them on the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

9. By labeling the novel COVID mRNA products as “vaccines,” the definition of the term “vaccine” has become so broadened that essentially any medication that induces an immune response against a disease may now be dubbed a “vaccine,” thereby shielding pharmaceutical companies from liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to a previously unimagined extent.

10. Vaccine mandates thereby compel citizens to submit to medical treatments a) that are regarded under Federal law to be “unavoidably unsafe,” b) that because they are unavoidably unsafe, their manufacturers are protected by Federal law from liability for harm done to citizens, c) whose manufacturers and government agencies nevertheless promote publicly as “safe and effective,” in direct contradiction to their legal status as “unavoidably unsafe,” and d) that have increased tremendously in number in recent decades, and, with mRNA technology and a broadened definition of the term “vaccine,” stand to multiply at an even greater rate in the future.

I hope these 10 sentences will help the unconvinced to reconsider the central dogma surrounding vaccines. We, as a society, need to reject the article of faith that vaccines are fundamentally “safe and effective.” 

Vaccines, due to their unavoidably unsafe nature, should NEVER be mandated, and a thorough, product-by-product accounting of the individual vaccines needs to be done outside of government agencies.

How can we accomplish this?

Please forgive me if you thought I was done. I have 10 more sentences listing my proposed solutions to the trouble with vaccines. I ask you to trudge through these as well. Most of them are shorter than the first 10. Thank you.

A Proposed Solution to the Trouble with Vaccines in 10 (more) Sentences:

1. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs. 

2. Federal law should be passed prohibiting the mandating of any and all vaccines at all levels of government.

3. Federal law should be passed prohibiting all direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

4. Federal law should be passed prohibiting all collaboration between the Department of Health and Human Services’ “alphabet soup” agencies (FDA, CDC, NIH, etc.) and either the Department of Defense (US Army, DARPA, etc.) or the Federal Intelligence Agencies (CIA, DHS, etc.) with regard to vaccine development or vaccine distribution to the public.

5. Federal law should be passed prohibiting all persons working within the HHS agencies from gaining any personal financial benefit from vaccines, including the gaining and holding of patents or royalties, and civil servants in those agencies should be required to take an oath of office not to profit off  of any products they approve, regulate, or about which they advise the public.

6. A thorough and public investigation, including criminal prosecutions where appropriate, should be made regarding the key players (both public and private) involved in the development, marketing, manufacture, sale, and administration of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and following the investigation, there should be appropriate reform within the HHS agencies.

7. Detailed, independent, Cochrane-style reviews of every vaccine on the CDC vaccine schedules should be undertaken and made public, and no scientists with financial interests within the pharmaceutical industry should conduct these reviews.

8. Detailed, independent reviews of all reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) related to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should be undertaken and made public, and appropriate reforms to VAERS should be made.

9. A detailed Congressional review of the money trails related to COVID-era programs, including Operation Warp Speed and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, should be conducted, focusing on fraud and abuse at all levels, including how private companies such as Pfizer and Moderna profited so enormously from taxpayer-funded initiatives.

10. A open, public discussion and debate should be undertaken on the appropriate role of vaccines in public health, including, among other issues, a) a critical review of the current medical dogma on vaccines, b) an accounting of the mistakes, abuses, and potential lessons of the COVID-19 era, and c) a thorough discussion of the undeniable conflicts between public health as it is now practiced and the fundamental civil rights of citizens.

The medical establishment’s current dogma on vaccines (“safe and effective,” no questions asked) and its corresponding catechism (the ever-expanding vaccine schedules) are in desperate need of reform. I submit that we begin with the above steps.

Reformers are not heretics, although they are commonly labeled as such by powerful persons resisting reform. I, for one, am not a heretic, nor am I an “anti-vaxxer.” I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem is, when one looks closely at the vaccine schedules, there turns out to be a lot more bathwater and a lot less baby than advertised.

It is time for the profession of medicine, and society as a whole, to come out of the Dark Ages on this topic. It is time for an open, forthright reevaluation of vaccines and their role in public health.                          

0

0

Good conservatives have thrown their hats in the ring for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.  In spite of his and his primary supporters presumptions Trump does not own the ring. As Republicans with ideas, with however more or less merits, they have the right to challenge the political situation –  just as Trump did in 2016 — in pursuit of what they see is best for America by convincing first the party’s primary voters of their approach.  Anticipating electability is properly a big factor in the primary voters’ decision making as to whom to put forward. A lot is at stake.

Trump supporters will insist that he is the most electable and that is certainly a recurring theme for Trump — touting polls (snapshots of opinion regarding a battle that has only just started) that indicate he leads the Republican field and that say he would prevail over Joe Biden. Trump does not usually talk about the margins for that matchup.

But the degree of transference from who is most known to at this point largely unengaged Republicans “Trump leads by a wide margin for Republican nomination” to who is best to defeat Biden/ Democrat nominee is not clear at all. Trump’s current standing is also a result of a situation where Trump owns the media attention and in the conservative outlets that Republican primary voters listen to that attention is largely defensive of him (and rightly so to a great extent). Trump benefits from the attention because the indictments are so unfair.

The current polling “factoids”also indicate that at least one other candidate – DeSantis- is within the polling margin of error vis a vi Biden. In such a poll — if Trump leads Biden by  1% and the margin of error of the poll is 3% or 4%  by the same poll Trump could be behind by 2% or 3% and by the same degree of certainty (or uncertainty) a  challenger to Trump does better against Biden. However far supposedly behind Trump DeSantis is at this stage of the primary match-up, in those same snapshots DeSantis can (and does) poll to be actually superior to Trump against Biden or essentially as competitive.

Such polls also presume that Biden will be the Democrat nominee.  But if Biden is not the Democrat nominee, which we believe a real possibility, and the Democrat nominee presumably cannot avoid debates — we think a Republican superior at debating without eating a live rat on stage* will increase their standing if it is not too late in the process.

Trump is still arguably a risky pick by the very polls he touts.

*always grateful to SF for the descriptor of a candidate blowing up his or her standing on stage by saying or doing something gross or stupid — in Trump’s case unforced errors for lack of a filter or even arrogance.

0

0