"Alien Absentee Ballot" by Ed Newmann
Massachusetts-based Federal U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy suspended Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s (RFK Jr.) reduction of the CDC's Childhood Schedule of Vaccines from 17 to 11, including both Hepatitis A and B; Influenza; Rotavirus; Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV); and Meningococcal vaccines – all absurd inoculations that have no more conclusive science behind them than most of the other vaccines populating the Childhood Schedule on behalf of Big Pharma. Those remaining vaccines include Haemophilus Influenza Type B (Hib); Polio; Human Papillomavirus (HPV), except the number of doses has been reduced to one from two or three; Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Whooping Cough (D tap/Tdap); and Pneumococcal vaccines.
The requisite studies Americans mistakenly believe have been robustly conducted attesting to the safety and efficacy of these vaccines have not been done, regardless of the false claims consistently made to the contrary by public health authorities. This lack of scientific documentation was confirmed more than a decade ago by the CDC upon a court order to release study results, including nonexistent bicameral studies otherwise required every two years as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
If such studies have been done, where are they? Where is the substantive evidence that should end the public's insecurities and fears relative to these vaccines, along with unabated controversies, and most importantly, remedies for individual children who are then unintentionally harmed by them?
Judge Murphy also suspended RFK Jr's replacement of the FDA's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As HHS Chief du jour, it is Kennedy's constitutional prerogative to appoint whom he chooses. However, Murphy claimed the new appointments did not follow proper protocol and consequently were not valid appointees. Ergo, the prior approval by the former ACIP panel to keep the 17 vaccines on the Childhood Schedule remains intact upon appeal and/or until a new ACIP panel is properly appointed.
This smacks of more lawfare, with this judge's authority to not only dismiss an Executive Branch Director's entire advisory panel of 13 individuals due to a process error(s), but also nullify its critical decisions while empaneled, especially using an arguably subjectively partisan lens.
Judge Murphy demonstrated this partisan subjectivity in his ruling. He cited that Kennedy had violated the empanelment process encoded in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which mandates federal advisory committees be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed.” Murphy claimed the 13 members RFK Jr. appointed were nearly unanimous in their anti-vaccine views, and that at least half were not adequate to the job of advising on vaccines.
It begs a definition of anti-vaccine in this context, especially with the lack of evidence relative to safety data. And for comparative integrity, where is this requisite balance featured with the former ACIP panel, and the panels before it? And what vaccine expertise with any of the previous ACIP panels?
A cursory review of the previous ACIP panel members embarrassingly reveals that individual committee members' votes on CDC's recommendations were indistinguishable from one another, most especially their unanimous pro-vaccine dispositions. As for previous panel expertise, to a man and woman, investigative inquisitiveness was virtually nonexistent during the fast-tracked meetings to approve COVID injections. This suggests a truer indictment to hive-minded consensus, especially considering mRNA injections comprised brand-new vaccine technology.
Why All the Sudden Ramping Up of Legislative Life-and-Death Assault on Babies?
The astonishing indifference toward babies in the 21st century is ratcheting up, evidenced by degenerate legislators, who have proposed bills that would permit outright infanticide up to 28 days after birth as Perinatal, 28 days after birth, versus Prenatal, before birth (California already passed AB 2223); prohibit investigation of deaths after birth by law enforcement, including coroners (Washington SB 5093); and punish medical professionals who report infant deaths (Maryland HB1311). Pre-born babies can no longer count on immediate sanctuary once outside the womb, even though live births legally entitle babies to all the constitutional protections as U.S. citizens.
Yet there are lawmakers who believe themselves to be something more than mere representatives of a political human constituency, but also arbiters of life itself, affirming or denying existence without oversight or inspection by law enforcement expressly prohibited in the legislation governing such death sentences. Ask yourselves: What kind of healthcare apparatus would/could condone, let alone be comfortable, leaving newborn babies completely vulnerable and at the mercy of ghouls afoot for an additional 28 days after live births?
LegInfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223
App.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5093&Year=2025&Initiative=false
MGaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb1131
Mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/bills/hb/hb1131F.pdf
What Possible Justification Could Exist for Not Requiring at Least a Picture ID to Vote?
Senate Democrats voted unanimously against requiring voters to show a picture ID at election polls, even though it was a highly watered down version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act for election reforms, by eliminating required proof of citizenship ,and brutally exposing Congress for a bunch of diaper babies.
This might be the Democratic party's midterm undoing, as it irrevocably reveals its true motives where elections are concerned – make elections cheatable, unauditable, unverifiable. And the equally culpable GOP are tickled their votes weren't necessary to step on this legislation.
The “undoing” nature of the Democrats' consistent failure to represent Americans here is tethered to their unwillingness to fund ICE, which inevitably means tethered to their inexplicable unwillingness to protect U.S. borders, a mandate favored by over 80 percent of Americans. It is among Congress' highest fiduciary duties as a matter of national security.
Because there are conceivably hundreds of pathways to common ground for border security and immigration reform that is humane, protective, manageable, and representative of the American people's interests, instead of the comparatively narrow purposes of large donors that have long captured all of Congress, Democrats and Republicans in equal measure. It follows that the reasons for this bizarrely stubborn disrepresentation by legislators is strictly self-serving and egregiously contrary to the people's interests.
I want to believe that Americans are finally coming to the hard truth that there simply is no justifiable rationale for legislators and bureaucrats, including the executive and judicial branches, to deliberately collude to maintain insecure borders and immigration chaos that is inhumane, unsustainable, and destructive to America.
Which necessarily means acknowledging the majority of legislators, as a body and individually, have lost the core mission of democratic representation in a constitutional republic governed by the people, in favor of a new core mission of “government continuity” managed via administrative procedure. The evidence for this is exhaustive and deserves in-depth coverage.
TheHill.com/homenews/senate/5802680-photo-id-vote-senate-democrats/
U.S. Supreme Court Ruled Government Is Not Permitted to Censor Public's Free Speech
Among the U.S. Constitution's nonnegotiable mandates is for government to protect the people's right to free speech accrued to each of us through our humanity. Government is not the arbiter of free speech, or the granter of it, nor is government the editor of it. Government is the guarantor of free speech. Get the straight of this, all of you!
In Missouri vs Biden, filed in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of Plaintiffs – states of Missouri and Louisiana, Publisher Gateway Pundit James Hoft, Dr Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines – affirming the unconstitutionality of government interference/influence to censor public free speech.
In March 2026, SCOTUS confirmed the plaintiffs' position, declaring such conduct (censoring through deplatforming, et al) by government illegal and prohibited going forward. A legal doctrine exists that warns government cannot use a private entity to do what it cannot do on its own. This doctrine also attaches to private entities contracting on behalf of government for services. A Consent Decree was agreed and entered into by the parties, including the Trump Administration.
Missouri v Biden verified what many of us already knew, that every primary government agency (DHS, HHS, CDC, DOD, EPA, et al) has its own departmental program dedicated to domestic censorship of information it wants kept from the public, whether via social media platforms; broadcast/cable television and radio network media and entertainment programming; newspaper, books, and magazine publishers; and Hollywood productions.
Overly broad terms, such as “disinformation” (inaccurate, untrue but intentional), “misinformation” (inaccurate, untrue but unintentional), and “malinformation” (accurate, true but inconvenient/embarrassing for government), were conjured with augmented meanings providing deliberately obtuse rationale for targeted-but-broad censorship/deplatforming directed by government against Americans at large. These censorship programs were executed mostly under the radar with no forewarning, no remedy, and no compensation for egregious proxy government takings of revenues from those censored.
Many times removing accounts, along with all content regardless how rich, has been in perpetuity, with no opportunity for future access to the platform or to users' own generated content. This has been the result of platforms' undisclosed contortions to its users-policies to accommodate the government's bullying.
But too often, it has also been due to accompanying hive-minded objection to the content posted by account users. Being banned from these platform(s) in collusion with government's desire to remove the content from public consumption, makes this form of censorship egregiously unlawful because it is in direct violation of constitutionally protected free speech.
Ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf
Law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-30445/23-30445-2023-10-03.html
Archive.org/stream/mo-v-biden-consent-decree/MO-v-Biden_Consent-Decree_djvu.txt
Scarcity or Abundance – You Decide Which
I am excited for you to read the article by Michael Shellenberger for Public News (and listen to the video/audio version that goes with it) on the energy crisis afoot, using a comparative breakdown of percentages of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and nuclear energy versus renewables (wind, solar, hydro/water). It is such a reveal, with each energy's operational status tethered to its actual revenues, and relationship to energy policies globally, and their impacts on economies. We've been inexcusably asleep at the wheel and its time to snap out of it.
I remember when I was little and learned that fossil fuels derived from the layers of Earth where prehistoric creatures (dinosaurs, et al) were buried and fossilized over time. Later ideas were conveyed that because fossilized stratification was only so many layers of the entire earth, it was not a resource that would last forever, and that humans would experience its limits, any remaining supply, in my lifetime.
The concept of scarcity versus abundance was getting legs, thunk up by a negative Nellie named Malthus, who believed the population was increasing exponentially compared to planetary resources, and because humans will always increase faster than resources that sustain them, mankind was ultimately doomed.
This scarcity theory became known as the Malthusian Crisis. Time has proven Thomas Malthus decidedly wrong, all his predictions failing with the advent of food production technology, demographic changes such as lower birth rates in large populations, etc. Regardless, sociopaths, megalomaniacs, and all manner of control freaks have used Malthus' theory of population growth to justify euthanasia, genocide, starvation, as a means of culling the herd.
Then one magical day, I heard a discussion on oil drilling and how powerful drills can now burrow miles below the surface where there are increasing discoveries of oil and natural gas reserves. I recalled that fossils, bones belonging to prehistoric creatures preserved in the stratifications of the Earth, were most commonly found much closer to the surface, while oil and gas reserves are commonly found much deeper. Do the math.
I'm for embracing abundance, returning some commons sense, and most of all, engaging our curiosity.
