Election 2024

The Elite [Democrats] Are More Likely To Cheat During Elections

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager read from a couple articles showing how “the elite” that are willing to cheat in elections are in fact Democrats. Zuckerbucks is a “for instance”:

  • Zuckerbucks 101: How A Media Mogul Took Over The 2020 Election And Why GOP Leaders Must Never Let It Happen Again (THE FEDERALIST)

And these elites all joining forces:

  • The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election (TIME)

SOME ARTICLES:

  • Poll: Most of the Elite Are Okay With Cheating to Win Elections (HOT AIR:)
  • ‘Most Terrifying Poll Result I’ve Ever Seen’: Scott Rasmussen Surveys America’s Elite 1% (DAILY SIGNAL)
  • The Elite 1 Percent Behind the Cultural Civil War (REAL CLEAR POLICY)
  • RASMUSSEN STUDY: Them vs. Us (PDF)

‘The Most Terrifying Poll Result I’ve Ever Seen’ (ISSUES & INSIGHTS)

….Given this, it’s not surprising that the elite 1 percent have great faith in government. Some 70 percent trust government to do the right thing most of the time.

Rasmussen said that this project has revealed the scariest single polling number he has seen in nearly 35 years of studying popular opinion. According to his data, 35 percent of the elite 1 percent (and 69 percent of the politically obsessed elite 1 percent) said they would rather cheat than lose a close election. Among average Americans, 93 percent reject cheating and accept defeat in an honest election. Only 7 percent reported they would cheat.

While only 6 percent of most voters have a very favorable opinion of members of Congress, 69 percent of the elite 1 percent have a very favorable view (this is almost unimaginable). While 10 percent of all voters have a favorable view of journalists, the elite 1 percent really like them (71 percent favorable). While 17 percent of all voters have a favorable view of college professors, the elite 1 percent just love them (76 percent). This tracks, because many of the elite 1 percent may be college professors.

To illustrate the scale of the gap between the elite 1 percent and the rest of the country, consider the elite 1 percent’s views on climate issues (and understand that these ideas are opposed by 63 percent to 83 percent of most Americans).

  • 77 percent of the elite 1 percent would like to impose strict restrictions and rationing on the private use of gas, meat, and electricity.
  • 72 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning gas powered vehicles.
  • 69 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning gas stoves.
  • 58 percent of the elite 1 percent favor of banning sport utility vehicles.
  • 55 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning non-essential air travel.
  • 53 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning private air conditioning.

As Rasmussen noted, the degree to which the elite 1 percent think their views represent those of the average American is astonishing.

According to Rasmussen, the most radical of the elite 1 percent were educated at what he calls the “dirty dozen:” Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern, John’s Hopkins, Columbia, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell, MIT, and the University of Chicago.

The elite 1 percent who graduated from these schools deeply believe in government. Fifty-five percent believe there is too much individual freedom in America and that Americans should obey government and follow government leadership.

Rasmussen’s identification of the elite 1 percent begins to explain the depth of the tension between most Americans and the tiny group of elitists who control what Vladimir Lenin called “the commanding heights,” the elements of power which control the rest.

It is the elite 1 percent who dominate the universities, news media, judiciary, intelligence agencies, giant foundations, and most major corporations. Although they are relatively few, they marry each other, their children go to the same schools, and they hire and promote each other.

Charles Murray in his classic work, “Coming Apart,” analyzed zip codes and proved that graduates from “dirty dozen” universities that Rasmussen described live, work and play in the same zip codes. They are an isolated set and create a “power aristocracy” that has no knowledge of the rest of us – and contempt for most of us. This perfectly explains Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” line.

Scott Rasmussen has done pioneering work. Every American should read “The Elite 1% and the Battle for America’s Soul” to understand what we are fighting to change.

Election 2024: of Coalitions and Crumbling Lawfare Tactics

Published by Papa Giorgio

According to recent polling, because of the former president’s term in office and the bona fides of the America First agenda, the Trump coalition may very well be expanding right before our eyes. Against Mr. Biden, Mr. Trump is attracting the support of 51% of voters under the age of 30, 48% of the Hispanic vote, and 28% of the African American vote. These numbers pose a mortal threat to Mr. Biden’s wobbly candidacy. (WASHINGTON TIMES)

Alex Marlow and Steve Hilton were on FOX BUSINESS to discuss President Trumps excelling in the polls. This is with a hat-tip to BREITBART.

The below is a bonus and shows how this coalition spoken to above and the crumbling “lawfare” route the Democrts were banking on may produce a hearty win for Trump in 2024:

This is the first 19-minutes of BANNON’S WAR ROOM (3/16/2024 Episode 3467). If the trend holds that their “lawfare tactic” continues to erode, then trying to present winning ideas is also most probably an abject failure as well. Since no real accomplishments exist.

Again, good news if this trajectory holds.

Patrick Bet-David Exposes Bill Maher’s “Informed Choices”

Published by Papa Giorgio

A tense moment of Club Random as Patrick Bet David asks Bill Maher to name one positive thing Gavin Newsom has done Bill is rendered unable to do so, and deflects to a pathetic “You’re better than this” platitude…

If you ever want to see one of your liberal friends throw a tantrum, just ask them to defend their own logic and reasoning. They cannot win an argument without a government mandate

(Eric Abbenante)

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Valuetainment’s Patrick Bet-David tricking Bill Maher into admitting Gavin Newsom’s failures on the “Club Random Podcast”; Bill Maher attacking Joe Biden for lying about his ability to stop the border crisis on “Real Time with Bill Maher”; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and 149 other Democrats voting against deporting illegal immigrants for drunk driving; NYC District Attorney Alvin Bragg releasing the migrants who attacked officers of the NYPD; CNN’s Erica Hill realizing why migrants are stealing in NYC, spending the money in Florida, and then returning to NYC; Jordan Peterson telling Michael Malice how the same focus on group identity that the Left is pushing today also led to countless deaths in Rwanda and in the Soviet Union; re-elected President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele pointing out the hypocrisy of activists’ hyper-focused concern on the rights of criminals at the expense of regular people, and much more.

Mamet Interviews on UnHeard | Why Trump Will Win in 2024

Published by Papa Giorgio

David Mamet: Why Trump will win in 2024 (28:01 – 36:20)

00:00 – 00:45 – Introduction
00:45 – 05:58 – When did David Mamet realise he was destined for the storytelling business, and how has the industry changed?
05:58 – 10:40 – The politicisation of the screenwriting industry
10:40 – 17:43 – David Mamet on being politically outspoken in a liberal industry
17:43 – 22:40 – The role of the mainstream media
22:40 – 23:28 – “Nobody cares about diversity”
23:28 – 28:01 – Does David Mamet feel any differently about being an American Jew in light of recent events?
28:01 – 36:20 – Will Donald Trump win in 2024?
36:20 – 38:44 – Does Mamet believe in banning speech?
38:44 – 42:28 – The future of Hollywood
42:28 – 43:06 – Concluding thoughts

Nikki Haley vs. Iowa (Tucker Carlson | Jesse Watters)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Trump’s Iowa landslide sees him win 98 out of 99 counties in drubbing that leaves rivals DeSantis and Haley trailing: So what does this mean for next week’s New Hampshire primary?

See PJ-MEDIA’s post titled: “Nikki Haley Is the Candidate Who Lost Iowa”

Another interesting note is the following CNN poll:

Here is some excellent commentary on IOWA and the upcoming New Hampshire Caucus.

Tucker Carlson (EP.65) – What The Results In Iowa Mean

More at RED STATE.

Jesse Watters | Iowa hit a nerve with the press so beware- mass censorship is next. And the censorship campaign is only one leg of the stool: the deep state disinformation campaign’s already begun. The third leg of the stool? Obama’s going to make it rain.

Colorado Upper Court Uses 14th Amendment – Illegally

Published by Papa Giorgio

(UPDATED BELOW)

NATIONAL REVIEW discusses the options in front of the courts… but remember, another way (split the horns Plato) is available. One site says “CHECKMATE” regarding this option. More below.

Chris Christie is no fan of Trump, yet, he can see the main issue at hand:

Christie

Jonathan Turley notes the following on TWITTER:

The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from [voting] for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

[….]

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: “The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified.” …

…This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…

…It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots….

…The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle. I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.

[….]

James Freeman Clarke once said “a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.” It is time for President Joe Biden to show that he can think of the next generation and oppose this insidious ruling.

[….]

Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. The four Colorado justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation on every key element. The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment.

In a very truncated clip from a longer video via Bannon’s War Room, Alan Dershowitz says the following:

Dershowitz

TRANSCRIPT:

Even people like me, who would welcome the loss – on political grounds, wouldn’t accept it on Constitutional grounds, because this is about the most dangerous, worst, and…

um, unconstitutional decision I’ve read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing criminal law.

This is a power grab.

In violation of the specific words of the 14th amendment, you couldn’t be clearer when the 14th amendment allocates the power to enforce this provision.

  • “expressly and singularly to Congress, Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation”

Having the States do this? On an individual basis is (a) absurd under contemporary law. And as well, the idea that the framers of the 14th amendment, radical Reconstructionists, would allocate to Mississippi and Alabama… ahh… the right to decide who’s on the ballot, ah, just defies any kind of historical understanding.

POWERLINE has a decent update to their article expanding where the case may weave it way to:

UPDATE: A number of readers have wondered why I said the Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. On reflection, that was an offhand comment that was not thoroughly thought through. There were two reasons for it:

First, the Republican majority on the Court is highly reluctant to wade into waters that are seen as political. Ruling in Trump’s favor would use up a large share of the Court’s diminished political capital, and Trump is hardly the person on whom the justices want to expend that precious commodity. On the other hand, the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal question that is squarely presented by this case and may not be easy to duck.

Second, the Court would need to act fast, as the primary season is nearly upon us. Normally, litigating any case in the Supreme Court takes time. I assume the Court would want to hear from a number of parties and would want extensive briefing. On a normal calendar, I don’t think there is enough time for that to happen. On the other hand, the Court can act more quickly if it wants to, and if it is willing to expend, in this case, the necessary political capital. So it could be possible.

A friend who is a very good lawyer writes:

I suspect that in fact the Supreme Court will immediately grant an emergency appeal and will rule 9-0, or 8-1 if Justice Jackson wants to be her usual moronic self, to overturn the Colorado decision. I imagine that every justice on the Supreme Court understands the implications of the decision, which would mean that any partisan state court could take the other party’s candidate off the ballot. So I will be shocked if they don’t feel the urgency to settle this once and for all. In fact, there has to be a lot of concern about the partisan turn of the courts in general.

I hope my friend is correct. I would only note that in the minds of many voters, the “partisan turn” of the courts is in our direction under the current Court–something to which the justices are acutely sensitive. And for the Democratic justices to renounce partisanship by voting in a way that is good for America but bad for the Democrats, in a high-profile, politically-charged case, is theoretically possible, but I am not sure there is any precedent for it.

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE UPDATE!

The “Insurrection Clause” Doesn’t Apply Without a Declaration of Insurrection:

Colorado judges don’t get to declare that there was a federal insurrection.

[….]

For the “insurrection clause” to apply, there has to be an insurrection. That means there has to be a declaration of insurrection.

Congress and the Lincoln administration both defined and declared an insurrection. There’s been no declaration now which means, legally speaking, there’s no insurrection and therefore no insurrection clause applies.

The 14th is still a legal minefield in this regard and the ability of a president to claim insurrection is in theory an open-ended nightmare. Biden could, for example, hypothetically declare that an insurrection is underway, but he hasn’t so the point is null.

Colorado judges, random uninvolved state legislatures and Uncle Bob do not get to define an insurrection against federal authority. Only federal authorities get to declare an insurrection. Neither Trump nor Biden declared one of those.

New York, for example, could not unilaterally decide that Confederate states were in a state of insurrection. But that is what Colorado is trying to do here. States ought to usurp federal authority more often, but this is a blatantly illegal usurpation.

And the factual forest should not be lost for the legalistic trees.

Other States To Use Colorado Ruling

Of course, as other states try ta do this using the Colorado “ruling,” …. which RED STATE notes:

California’s Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis, has sent a memo to the California Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, seeking to have Donald Trump removed from California’s primary ballot. 

[….]

The memo states in part:

Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Griswold (2023 CO 63) that Trump’s insurrection disqualifies him under section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to stand for presidential re-election. Because the candidate is ineligible, the court ruled, it would be a “wrongful act” for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on that state’s presidential primary ballot.

That’s wrong. It’s so wrong it’s not even in the same time zone as right. The entire argument here is based on nothing more than raw assertion: “Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection because of course he is.”….

routing the courts by caucusing trump

Of course, if this ruling is allowed to stand and the real SUPES don’t fix it, there are other ways to vote for voters to express their God-Given ability for freedom (RED STATE):

…As I predicted to my oldest son when the decision dropped Tuesday night, there’s one remedy the Republican Party can use to avoid all of this expensive and time-consuming lawfare completely. To its credit, the Colorado Republican Party almost immediately said that they would invoke it.

That remedy: Switch to a caucus to determine the party’s nominee….

CHECKMATE!

Will Trump’s 2nd Term Be a Dictatorship? Victor Davis Hanson Responds

Published by Papa Giorgio

Victor Davis Hanson critiques [destroys] the Democrat and mainstream media’s narrative regarding Trump’s 2nd term as a dictatorship. Must listen to response.

How Feds ‘Skirted’ Constitution to Censor Content Online

Published by Papa Giorgio

See my previous post on this topic:

REASON-TV

These two shorter video clips are taken from a longer conversation with Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya and New Civil Liberties Alliance senior counsel John Vechionne.

By focusing their sights on government actors instead of private companies under their boot, the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs have chosen exactly the right target.

YouTube removed this March 2021 roundtable organized by Florida governor Ron DeSantis because of the views Bhattacharya and others expressed about masking children in school. Was this part of an illegal censorship campaign, as a lawsuit in federal court alleges?

JOHN SOLOMON

(Oct 1, 2022) “Anyone who’s concerned about free speech… this ought to scare you.” John Solomon joins Dr. Gina with his report on a private group that worked with the government to submit requests for censorship online during the 2020 election AND THEY’RE DOING IT AGAIN!

WALL STREET JOURNAL

The WALL STREET JOURNAL writes about the ruling as well:

  • 5th Circuit finds Biden White House, CDC likely violated First Amendment — The three judge panel found that contacts with tech companies by officials from the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the CDC and the FBI likely amounted to coercion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies’ decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections.

The decision, written unanimously by three judges nominated by Republican presidents, was likely to be seen as victory for conservatives who have long argued that social media platforms’ content moderation efforts restrict their free speech rights. But some advocates also said the ruling was an improvement over a temporary injunction U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued July 4.

David Greene, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the new injunction was “a thousand times better” than what Doughty, an appointee of former president Trump, had ordered originally.

Doughty’s decision had affected a wide range of government departments and agencies, and imposed 10 specific prohibitions on government officials. The appeals court threw out nine of those and modified the 10th to limit it to efforts to “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”
The 5th Circuit panel also limited the government institutions affected by its ruling to the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI. It removed restrictions Doughty had imposed on the departments of State, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services and on agencies including the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The 5th Circuit found that those agencies had not coerced the social media companies to moderate their sites.

Read the 5th Circuit’s ruling

The judges wrote that the White House likely “coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences.” They also found the White House “significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment.”

A White House spokesperson said in a statement that the Justice Department was “reviewing” the decision and evaluating its options.
“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the White House official said. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

The decision, by Judges Edith Brown Clement, Don R. Willett and Jennifer Walker Elrod, is likely to have a wide-ranging impact on how the federal government communicates with the public and the social media companies about key public health issues and the 2024 election.

The case is the most successful salvo to date in a growing conservative legal and political effort to limit coordination between the federal government and tech platforms. This case and recent probes in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have accused government officials of actively colluding with platforms to influence public discourse, in an evolution of long-running allegations that liberal employees inside tech companies favor Democrats when making decisions about what posts are removed or limited online.

The appeals court judges found that pressure from the White House and the CDC affected how social media platforms handled posts about covid-19 in 2021, as the Biden administration sought to encourage the public to obtain vaccinations.

The judges detail multiple emails and statements from White House officials that they say show escalating threats and pressure on the social media companies to address covid misinformation. The judges say that the officials “were not shy in their requests,” calling for posts to be removed “ASAP” and appearing “persistent and angry.” The judges detailed a particularly contentious period in July of 2021, which reached a boiling point when President Biden accused Facebook of “killing people.”

“We find, like the district court, that the officials’ communications — reading them in ‘context, not in isolation’ — were on-the-whole intimidating,” the judges wrote.
The judges also zeroed in on the FBI’s communications with tech platforms in the run-up to the 2020 elections, which included regular meetings with the tech companies. The judges wrote that the FBI’s activities were “not limited to purely foreign threats,” citing instances where the law enforcement agency “targeted” posts that originated inside the United States, including some that stated incorrect poll hours or mail-in voting procedures.

The judges said in their rulings that the platforms changed their policies based on the FBI briefings, citing updates to their terms of service about handling of hacked materials, following warnings of state-sponsored “hack and dump” operations.

[….]

The 5th Circuit ruling reversed Doughty’s order specifically enjoining the actions of leaders at DHS, HHS and other agencies, saying many of those individuals “were permissibly exercising government speech.”

“That distinction is important because the state-action doctrine is vitally important to our Nation’s operation — by distinguishing between the state and the People, it promotes ‘a robust sphere of individual liberty,’” the 5th Circuit judges wrote.

Yet Friday’s order still applies to a wide range of individuals working across the government, specifically naming 14 White House officials, including five who are no longer in office. The order specifically names Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and another member of his office, three CDC staffers and two FBI officials, including the head of the foreign influence task force and the lead agent of its cyber investigative task force in San Francisco.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is among the White House officials named.

Stanford Law School professor Daphne Keller said the 5th Circuit’s ruling appeared to allow “a lot of normal communications as long as they are not threatening or taking over control of platforms’ content decisions.”

“But it also says they can’t ‘significantly encourage’ platforms to remove lawful content, so the real question is what that means,” she said.

Friday’s decision came in response to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri who allege that government officials violated the First Amendment in their efforts to encourage social media companies to address posts that they worried could contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic or upend elections.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey celebrated the decision as a victory in a statement.

“The first brick was laid in the wall of separation between tech and state on July 4,” he said. “Today’s ruling is yet another brick.”

ACLJ: WILL END UP IN FRONT OF THE SUPES

ACLJ make the point that it will end up in front of SCOTUS.

We’re celebrating a massive free speech victory as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that President Joe Biden cannot censor conservatives on social media. We also give an update on our newest legal battle on behalf of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA against digital censorship. We must not allow the Biden Administration to interfere in future elections as it did with President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. 

No Pre-Licensing Safety Testing On All Childhood Mandated Vaccines?!

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Really, the reason behind this post is something RFK, Jr. said in a townhall. He said not a single mandated vaccine for children have ever gone through  pre-licensing safety trials. I had no-idea. — RPT

Before getting to that however, Jimmy Dore leads the way:

The whole premise of the COVID vaccine mandates was that everyone needed to be vaccinated because that would stop the spread of the virus. But it turns out that the CDC knew from the very beginning that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, so there was no need for mandates at all. As Jimmy points out in this video, that didn’t stop CDC head Rochelle Walensky from lying about the vaccines’ efficacy so she could continue pushing mandates.

Kennedy pushes back against critics that say he has anti-vaccine views. During a June 23 town hall hosted by WMUR-TV, Kennedy said if he were president, he would mandate pre-licensing safety trials for vaccines and “allow parents to make of their minds about whether they want to use vaccines for their children.”

“What I’ve said is I’m pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines…to at least the kind of rigorous placebo-controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine,” Kennedy told WMUR. (NEWSNATIONNOW)

Here is a helpful post via REDDITT:

Can anyone provide reliable sources substantiating RFKJr’s claim that “childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing”?

Any specific vaccines someone can list with supporting evidence that there were not placebo-controlled trails for? Is this really the case for all childhood vaccines on the vaccine schedule?

Here’s a link to the transcript from the All-In podcast [BELOW] where he mentions this.

SPEAKER ONE

your point of view specifically on COVID. My objective is not to vaccines. I’m not anti-vaccine. I’m fully vaccinated. My kids were fully vaccinated. I wish at this point that I had not done that because I know enough about them now, but my principal objective is that vaccines, the childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing. Of the 72, when I was a kid, I got three vaccines. My children got 72 doses of 16 vaccines. And the vaccines are the one medical product that does not have to go through placebo-controlled trials where you test and expose versus an exposed population prior to licensure. And there’s a number of historical reasons for that that come out of the kind of military beginnings. These vaccines were regarded as national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent,

SPEAKER FOUR

they could quickly formulate and deploy.

SPEAKER ONE

And that there’s a number of military vaccine at 200 million Americans with no regulatory impediments. So they call them biologics rather than medicines and exempted biologics from pre-licensing safety trials. I’ve litigated on the issue. Not one of them has ever been tested, pre-licensure against. So nobody knows what the, you know, you can say that the vaccine is effective against a target disease, but you can’t say that it’s not causing worse problems. Now, I’ll just summarize this story. In the vaccine schedule exploded in 1986, the vaccine industry succeeded in getting Ronald Reagan to sign a law. And my uncle was also, you know, a group that was pressured by Wyeth, which was losing $20 in downstream liabilities on every vaccine it made because of lawsuits for every dollar that it made. And they went to Reagan and said, oh, we’re going to get out of the vaccine business and you’re going to be left without a vaccine supply unless you give us full immunity from liability. And Reagan reluctantly signed that. And so today, no matter how good conduct, you cannot sue them. That caused a gold rush because now you’ve got a product that there’s no downstream liability.

You’re immune from that. There’s no upstream safety testing. So that’s a $250 million saving. And there’s no marketing or advertising costs. Because the federal government is going to mandate this product to 76 million American children whether they like it or not. And there’s no better product in the world. And so there was a gold rush. And instead of three vaccines, we quickly ended up with 72 and now we’re going to, toward 80 right now. And there’s no end in sight. And a lot of those vaccines were unnecessary. They’re not even for casual disease. It caused disease.

Here is the same topic on Bill Maher’s SHow:

Here is a great response in the same thread:

You have two separate questions:

Google “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986” for the immunity from liability question.

For the question about safety trials not being placebo-controlled, read “Turtles All The Way Down – Vaccine Science and Myth”. There is no single document that says “you don’t need placebo control”, so finding the answer to your question requires drilling down into the safety studies of every childhood vaccine. In some studies, they have what they call a “placebo”, but it is simply the vaccine under test, missing only the antigen-producing element. The adjuvant (aluminum?) is still in the placebo, the preservatives are there, everything except the one item. You need to do a lot of investigation to find the pattern. The author of “Turtles….” has done that investigation for you, and it is fully referenced.

(edit) As an example of how much drilling down is needed to answer question 2:

Look at the MMRII FDA Freedom of Information Request – it is 215 pages.

The summary that references the above FOIA is (from Turtles…)

The package insert for MMR II does not mention any safety trials. As with the polio vaccine (IPOL) described earlier, a FOIA request revealed that the vaccine was tested in the mid-1970s in eight small clinical trials.(Reference above) The control groups in all of the trials received either the predecessor vaccine (MMR), a measles-rubella (MR) vaccine, or a single-dose of the rubella vaccine. A total of approximately 850 children received MMR II. Some of the trials seem to have been randomized, but none were blinded. These trials, considered either singly or in combination, do not meet the current requirement of a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial, which might explain their complete absence from the package insert.

Here is the link to the website mentioned by RFK — click of pic:

Back in May this was published by EPOCH TIMES:

UK authorities are investigating an “unusual” surge in severe myocarditis which has hit 15 babies in Wales and England and has killed at least one, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has announced.

On Tuesday, the WHO issued an alert that there had been a rise in “severe myocarditis” in newborns and infants between June 2022 and March 2023 in Wales and England.

It said that this was associated with the enterovirus infection, which rarely affects the heart.

A UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that 10 babies have been diagnosed in Wales and five have been diagnosed in England.

The WHO said that “although enterovirus infections are common in neonates and young infants, the reported increase in myocarditis with severe outcomes in neonates and infants associated with enterovirus infection is unusual.”