Imprisoned in a System of Death and Mendacity

As it is of the nature of the human being to worship something about himself, fallen men whose souls have not been baptized or, after baptism, have fallen into what are Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, will latch onto some kind of belief system, no matter how inchoate, including political ideologies and/or some kind of junk science, which is a secular “religion” in and of itself. Those who permit themselves to be trapped in the prisons of this or that ideology become increasingly irrational over the course of time, to the point of refusing to believe anything, including hard empirical evidence, that disproves their ideological predilections.

Such has been and, very sadly, continues to be the case with the harm caused by the Wuhan Virus poisoned jabs as not even the first-hand evidence of Japan’s former minister of internal affairs and communications about his own Wuhan Virus-caused cancer seems capable of piercing the bubble in which these vaccine worshiping ideologues, among whose number includes Renzo Pegoraro and Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, live as they feed off each other’s own delusions:

(LifeSiteNews) — Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Japan’s former minister of internal affairs and communications, recently announced in a post on X that he is suffering from cancer caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.

Sharing an analysis of his cancer cells, Haraguchi penned the following:

This is an analysis of my cancer cells. It was determined that the malignant lymphoma had metastasized to the tonsils, but the lesions were removed and sent to a research facility. Even two years after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, spike proteins were found in the malignant lymphoma. Conversely, N proteins were not detected. This indicates that I had not been infected with COVID-19. We must put an end to the tragedies caused by the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible. This data is planned to undergo further detailed analysis and will be used for a research paper.

Last year, Haraguchi gained international attention when he gave a passionate speech at a demonstration against the globalist World Health Organization (WHO) in Tokyo, Japan.

Expressing his regret regarding the Japanese’s government’s handling of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and voicing his condolences to those who succumbed to vaccine-linked deaths, Haraguchi stated at the 2024 protest:

I apologize to all of you. So many have died, and they shouldn’t have.

Haraguchi added at that time:

When I travel around to different areas, I see those who can’t stand, can’t walk, can’t go to school, can’t go to work. We could have prevented these injuries from happening, but we did not.

Haraguchi even called on his listeners to “overthrow the current government,” a bold declaration that was welcomed with resounding applause.

“Let’s defeat those demonic forces,” Haraguchi proclaimed, urging for more government accountability.

In April 2024, thousands of people from across Japan gathered in the Ikebukuro district of Tokyo to protest the controversial WHO Pandemic Treaty.

This treaty surrenders significant governing powers from nation-states to unelected globalists should the WHO declare another “health emergency.”

s per the protest organizers at that time, at least 19,000 people gathered for the anti-WHO protests.

During the protests, Masayasu Inoue, professor emeritus of molecular pathology and medicine at Osaka City University Medical School, highlighted disturbing connections between global health authorities and Big Pharma agendas. During his speech, Inoue stated:

The pandemic was used as a false pretext by the WHO to drive vaccinations of all peoples in the world. A plan was set up to shorten the time to develop vaccines, which usually takes longer than ten years to less than one year. Operation Warp Speed. This operation was used to cover up the misconceptions of the genetic vaccines. Under the pretext of saving time, an extremely dangerous method was selected. That is, intramuscular injection of viral genes to produce toxic spike proteins directly in human tissues to stimulate the immune system. Because this is a completely new method and misconceived method that has never applied before in human history, it is impossible, therefore, for most doctors to give proper informed consent. However, due to irresponsible government and media campaigns to promote vaccines, 80% of the Japanese have been vaccinated.

Unfortunately, seven shots have been done so far. This is the most and worst in the world. And the result was the induction of the terrible drug induced injury that has never seen in human history. I believe that the fraudulent use of experimental gene therapy to healthy people, particularly to healthy children, is an extreme violation of human rights. (Former Japanese minister says he is suffering from COVID vaccine-induced cancer.)

Masayasu Inoue spoke the truth last year yet it is that the ideologues of one sort or another, including many of those in the upper echelons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, refuse to accept the truths about Wuhan Virus jabs just as much as they reject any concept of truth, supernatural or natural, that does not fit into their Modernist constructs.

On the other hand, however, the ideologues who populate the World Health Organization and those who populated the administration of the mentally decrepit, venal and thoroughly corrupt Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his cackling, vacuous cliché-spouting vice president, Kamala Harris Emhoff, do understand the truth and sought actively to suppress it for the sake of the depopulation goals of the World Economic Forum’s “global reset” and to exercise authoritarian control over the masses to prevent the dissemination of what they called “misinformation” even though they were the ones spreading true disinformation in an undisguised Orwellian manner:

U.S. health officials knew about the risks of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccines but downplayed the concern and delayed informing the public about the risks of taking the jab — that is according to a new Senate report released by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on Wednesday.  

Johnson, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has been investigating the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Earlier this year, he subpoenaed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for records relating to COVID-19 vaccine safety data and communications about the pandemic. 

The interim report, spanning 55 pages, obtained and reviewed by Fox News Digital, revealed that Biden administration officials "withheld crucial health information from the Subcommittee and the public." 

Since 2021, Johnson has sent more than 70 oversight letters, which he says were "either completely ignored or inadequately addressed." 

The report highlights the records Johnson has obtained pursuant to the subpoena from the new, Trump administration-led health agency. Specifically, the report focuses on HHS’ awareness of and response to cases of myocarditis — a type of heart inflammation — following COVID-19 vaccination.

Johnson’s report says the 2,473 pages of records he obtained "contain evidence of the Biden administration’s efforts to downplay and delay warning the public about the risks of myocarditis associated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines." 

The report points to records from May 2021, in which health officials at HHS discussed whether to issue a formal warning about myocarditis.

According to the report, the formal warning about myocarditis was initially going to be distributed nationwide as a Health Alert Network message, which, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is CDC’s "primary method of sharing cleared information about urgent public health incidents with public information officers; federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local public health practitioners; clinicians; and public health laboratories." 

However, Johnson’s report said that health officials at CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "ultimately decided against issuing a formal HAN and, instead, posted ‘clinical considerations’ on CDC’s website about myocarditis." 

"Based on the subpoenaed records the Subcommittee has received to date, as well as public FOIA documents, this interim report will highlight records and present a timeline showing U.S. health officials knew about the risk of myocarditis; those officials downplayed the health concern; and U.S. health agencies delayed informing the public about the risk of the adverse event," it said. 

The report also highlights the Israeli Ministry of Health notifying officials at the CDC in February 2021 of "large reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people, following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine." 

The report also highlights documents showing CDC officials discussing "safety signals" for myocarditis with mRNA vaccines in April 2021 based on Defense Department and Israeli data, but "still not taking immediate steps to warn the public." 

Documents obtained by Johnson also show CDC officials communicating with Moderna and Pfizer representatives about the risks. 

Johnson also obtained "draft meeting notes from late May 2021 exchanged between U.S. public health officials which included the question: ‘Is VAERS signaling for myopericarditis now?,’ and the answer: ‘For the age groups 16-17 years and 18-24 years, yes.’" 

"VAERS" is an acronym for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. 

"Rather than provide the public and health care providers with immediate and transparent information regarding the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration waited until late June 2021 to announce changes to the labels for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines based on the ‘suggested increased risks’ of myocarditis and pericarditis," the report states. "Even though CDC and FDA officials were well aware of the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration opted to withhold issuing a formal warning to the public for months about the safety concerns, jeopardizing the health of young Americans." 

The report added that the Biden administration’s decision "to downplay the COVID-19 vaccine health risks and delay warning the public about cardiac-related adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines jeopardized the public’s health." 

According to the report, as of April 25, VAERS reported 38,607 deaths and more than 1.6 million "adverse events worldwide associated with the administration of COVID-19 injections." 

Of the more than 38,000 deaths, the report said 25% occurred on Day 0, 1, or 2 following injection, compared to "2,663 deaths reported to VAERS associated with the flu vaccine over a period of 35 years." 

"No other reports of adverse events associated with any other drug or vaccine even come close to these statistics," the report states. "And yet, those who oversaw the development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines continue to insist it is safe and effective, without providing the data to prove their claims." 

Johnson’s report demands that the "full extent" of the Biden administration’s "failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed." 

"The American people fund the federal health departments and agencies with their hardearned tax dollars," the report states. "The information developed by these departments and agencies belong to the American people, and should be made fully and transparently available." 

The report states that as "the roadblocks are removed and more documents that have been hidden and withheld for years become available, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will provide transparency and let the American public see what is their right to see." (Health officials hid myocarditis risks from COVID vaccines, report alleges.)

How sad it is that so very few people, relatively speaking, are paying attention to these facts or even to the testimony given before Congressional committees about the harm being done by the Wuhan Virus “vaccines.”

On obstetrician/gynecologist named Dr. James Thorp even went so far as to say that expectant mothers were “targeted deliberately” in the medical-governmental-Big Pharma complex campaign to promote the jabs, although Dr. Thorp did not state the obviously, that by doing so the cabal was seeking to achieve its goal of depopulation by causing women to miscarry their preborn babies:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — A respected obstetrician/gynecologist began his testimony before a Senate hearing on COVID-19 shot adverse events yesterday by announcing that it would be “difficult to conceive of a more egregious breach of medical ethics by the government-controlled medical-industrial complex than the promotion of COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women.”

“This campaign was not accidental,” said Dr. James Thorp. “It was calculated. Pregnant women were targeted deliberately.” 

He explained that this was done in order to influence the American public’s perception of the COVID-19 shot as safe, because if pregnant women “could be convinced that the vaccine was safe and effective, it would imply that it was safe and effective for everyone.”

“From the outset of the pandemic, this vaccine campaign was never grounded in biological science, but rather in behavioral science, specifically the manipulation of public perception through influence, fear, and persuasion,” said Thorp. 

“The federal government outsourced much of this psychological operation to NGOs which disseminated emotionally-charged and misleading messaging,” noted Thorp. “These entities falsely assured pregnant women that the vaccines were proven safe and essential for maternal and fetal newborn health despite the fact that early evidence indicated quite the opposite.” 

The government’s vaccine marketing approach was to “go for the low-hanging fruit, those easiest to pick and harvest,” according to Dr. Jay Winston, an initiative director at Harvard’s School of Public Health in a 2020 CBS News interview. 

“And the ‘fruit,’ tragically, were pregnant women,” he said. 

Thorp cited a misleading study published in April 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed the miscarriage rate was 12.6 percent, “but the raw data revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in women vaccinated during the first trimester.” 

“This figure mirrors the effects of chemical abortion drugs such as RU486,” Thorp shockingly noted. 

Thorp asserted that “publications were riddled with conflicts of interest and deliberate misrepresentations intended to coerce pregnant women into taking vaccines.”

He continued:

These publications are fundamentally compromised by serious conflicts of interest, ranging from biased funding sources and institutional mandates, and even threats to their medical licenses and board certifications.

Between 2020 and 2022, pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at leading medical journals — The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ — thus corrupting the peer review process.

“Conversely, countless independent researchers with no conflicts of interest published findings that contradicted the false narratives and the pharmaceutical industry narratives, only to be rewarded by persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications,” said Thorp. 

“This is not hypothetical. It happened to me,” he said. 

“This catastrophic public health failure was financed with taxpayer dollars and channeled through federal agencies to medical gatekeepers such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine,” said Thorp.  

“These organizations have abandoned their ethics and responsibilities to physicians and patients and must be held accountable,” he insisted. 

“I urge the government to immediately halt all funding to these entities and to end every promotional campaign that coerces or recommends experimental mRNA therapies to pregnant women,” said Thorp. “This must stop now.”

Thursday’s Senate hearing on COVID-19 shot adverse events, chaired by Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI), coincided with the publication of Johnson’s interim Senate report accusing Biden administration officials of having been well aware of multiple major risks associated with the COVID-19 shots yet having “opted to withhold issuing a formal warning to the public for months about the safety concerns, jeopardizing the health of young Americans.”

“The full extent of the Biden administration’s failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed,” declared Johnson’s report.  

Dr. James Thorp is a board certified OB-GYN and maternal fetal medicine specialist with over 44 years of clinical experience. As a U.S. veteran and widely published physician, he has testified internationally and served as a peer reviewer. He is a board member of the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine and examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. (OB-GYN expert tells Congress that the COVID shots ‘mirrored’ effects of chemical abortion drugs.)

Yes, the Wuhan Virus jabs remain part of the “global reset,” although the statistics offered by Dr. Thorp should leave no honest person in doubt about the fact that expectant mothers were targeted in effort to kill their babies and, in the process, perhaps even to render these mothers sterile, which is why the United States Centers for Disease Control Prevention’s announcement that it will no longer recommend the jabs to be administered to young children (goats have kids, human beings have children, thank you very much), teenagers, and expectant mothers is welcomed if not long overdue:

(LifeSiteNews) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will remove the abortion-tainted COVID shots from the recommended schedule for kids, teens, and pregnant women, according to a new report.

The announcement is expected in the “coming days,” according to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report published yesterday, based on interviews with sources.

“The CDC currently recommends that everyone six months and older, including pregnant women, should receive Covid-19 vaccines,” WSJ reported. “It wasn’t clear if the department is planning to remove the recommendation for Covid-19 shots entirely for those groups, or just suggest that patients talk with their doctors about risks and benefits.”

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary hinted earlier this week  in an interview with Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk that changes were coming.

“Look, I’d love to see the evidence to show that giving young, healthy children another COVID shot – you know, a sixth COVID booster – would help them,” Makary said with a hint of sarcasm during an interview on Tuesday with Kirk. “But that evidence does not exist, and so we’re not just going to rubber-stamp things at the FDA, and I don’t think you’re going to see a push at the CDC to be pushing COVID shots in young, healthy children.” (BREAKING: Trump admin to pull COVID jabs from recommended schedule.)

Many other legitimate experts who understand the facts about the poisoned shots are calling for the United States Food and Drug administration to withdraw self-amplifying mRNA gene-therapy poisons given the harm that they are doing to those who have received them in the mistaken belief that they are “protecting” themselves against a mostly non-lethal virus but are really introducing toxins into their bodies than can cause heart disease and turbo-charged cancers:

Attorney Tom Renz is urging an “immediate halt” on self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) “vaccines” until studies of the various risks they pose to human health are conducted.

Renz, a prominent lawyer who has challenged vaccine mandates and pandemic policies, issued a white paper on Friday warning that saRNA “vaccines” could pose risks of shedding, recombination with wild viruses, persistence in the body, and sexual transmission, urging that their deployment be halted until independent studies on these risks are conducted.

saRNA works by accelerating the replication of RNA, which in turn produces an antigen theoretically designed to stimulate an immune response. Thus, as Renz noted, saRNA “vaccines” work by “producing high antigen levels at low doses.”

This fact alone raises concerns — at least one pre-clinical study showed that saRNA produces 10-100 times more antigen than mRNA. In the case of the mRNA COVID shots, many researchers found the antigen (spike protein) to be responsible for adverse effect, by triggering an inflammatory response.

Renz has noted that the amplified RNA and antigen production of saRNA increases the risk of shedding via bodily fluids. It may also enhance the risk of shedding by inhalation. Pfizer’s protocol for testing its mRNA COVID shot mandated that trial healthcare workers report any pregnancy “after having been exposed” to the jabbed “by inhalation or skin contact.”

The risk of shedding, at the very least through bodily fluids like saliva, semen, or breast milk, is further made likely due to studies’ evidence that saRNA persists in the body. One study cited by Renz showed that saRNA was detected in rat muscle, lymph nodes, liver, spleen, heart, lungs, gonads, and blood up to 60 days after injection. This persistence in a wide variety of organ systems “could sustain shedding” in genital and other fluids, the attorney noted.

Any risk of shedding, let alone an amplified risk posed by saRNA, raises the ethical problem of “inoculating” people with engineered genetic material without their consent.

Another risk of persistent saRNA, according to Renz, is its potential recombination with “wild-type RNA viruses” that an injected person may carry, resulting in a “chimeric virus.” This possibility is supported by literature reviews that have found that RNA recombination can occur by switching from one RNA “template” to another.  

Moreover, structural problems such as the reliance of health regulation bodies on vaccine manufacturer data, lack of accountability for misleading claims about mRNA shots such as that the mRNA stays at the injection site, and “censorship of vaccine safety concerns” have all coalesced to enable safety problems with such injections, Renz noted.

Thus, the risk of “great potential for harm” of these saRNA products makes their promotion “unjustified,” Renz said. 

Japan authorized the use of the first self-amplifying mRNA (“saRNA”) vaccine, supposedly to tackle COVID-19, in November 2023. The vaccine, known as “Kostaive,” is also referred to as ARCT-154.

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher told The Defender that “these products are completely new. There is absolutely no long-term safety data on them.”

“In the clinical trials for ARCT-154, injected participants experienced a 90% adverse event rate after the first dose in study Phases 1, 2, and 3a combined,” Hulscher said. Of these adverse events, 74.5% were systemic — meaning they occurred in a part of the body distant from the point of injection — and 15.2% required medical attention.

Remarkably, tens of thousands of Japanese citizens took to the streets to protest the unveiling of these so-called saRNA “vaccines” after Japan’s largest broadcaster, NHK, showcased a feature on their morning show Asaichi depicting real-life experiences of individuals who have suffered grave side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines.

Renz has urged that the saRNA “vaccine” rollout be instantly stopped until long-term persistence studies, shedding studies, sexual transmission trials, recombination studies and studies of saRNA persistence and shedding inw the immunocompromised are conducted by independent third parties, and regulatory reform is enacted. (Attorney Tom Renz calls for ‘immediate halt’ on self-amplifying RNA 'vaccines'.)

I know that vaccine shedding is real as I am familiar with a case of a young woman, who was not herself vaccinated, speaking to a doubly “vaxxed” woman at public and crumpled to the ground in abdominal pain that was identical experienced to women of childbearing ages on monthly basis, an experience that the young woman had gotten over some two weeks previously. The episode was caused by vaccines shedding, which is a very underreported causal agent of spreading the mRNA gene therapy to the unvaccinated.

Ah, but despite the CDC’s withdrawal of the recommendation, which physicians are free to ignore, course, that the Wuhan Virus jabs should not be administered to young children, teenagers, and expectant mothers, the government of the United States of America  is still actively promoting the mRNA technology. The CDC's "recommendation" is really meaningless when one considers the fact that United States Food and Drug Administration has just approved a "new" and "improved" version of the dangerous mRNA "vaccines" for the SARS-CoV-2 virus:

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna over the weekend, further dashing hopes that a new administration would close the book on the controversial shots.

The new vaccine, mNEXSPIKE, is approved for “active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019,” to be taken by “individuals who have been previously vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine and are: 65 years and older, or 12 through 64 with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19,” according to the FDA. 

A patient packaging insert will notify users of the potential for myocarditis or pericarditis, the odds of which it puts at “approximately 8 cases per million doses in people 6 months through 64 years of age and approximately 25 cases per million doses in males 12 years through 25 years of age”; and says generally subsides “a few days after receiving treatment with medicines used to reduce inflammation.”

“The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said. “COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA’s timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health.”

In keeping with an announcement last month by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and vaccine chief Dr. Vinay Prasad, there is no blanket recommendation for all Americans to receive the new shot, but the “risk factors” it will be recommended for include asthma, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney diseases, a handful of chronic liver and lung diseases, diabetes, disabilities such as Down’s syndrome, heart conditions, HIV, dementia, Parkinson’s, obesity, smoking, tuberculosis, and more. Late last month, Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced COVID vaccines will not be recommended to healthy children or pregnant women.

Still, the news indicates the Trump administration’s overall view of COVID vaccination will remain favorable and raises questions as to just how thoroughly the previous shots’ adverse events have been investigated for a new vaccine to be approved less than five months into the new administration.

For the past four years, President Donald Trump has dismissed objections to the COVID shots, which were developed in record time by his administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. 

Since leaving office, he repeatedly promoted the shots as “one of the greatest achievements of mankind.” The negative reception to such comments got him to drop the subject for a while, but in July 2022, he complained that “we did so much in terms of therapeutics and a word that I’m not allowed to mention. But I’m still proud of that word, because we did that in nine months, and it was supposed to take five years to 12 years. Nobody else could have done it. But I’m not mentioning it in front of my people.”

Pressed on the vaccines’ performance in a September 2024 interview with Sharyl Attkisson, Trump reiterated that “I think I did an amazing job with Covid” while granting, “I think they’re doing studies on the vaccines that we’re gonna find out. And it’ll come out one way or the other.”

Trump joining with Kennedy during the campaign caused many “COVID accountability” activists to hope for a change in direction. But during his confirmation hearings, Kennedy called Operation Warp Speed an “extraordinary accomplishment,” and since taking office most of the secretary’s activities have focused on other issues, such as conventional vaccines and food additives. Makary pledged during his own confirmation hearings simply to take an objective look at the evidence.

Meanwhile, a new interim Senate report headed by Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin alleges that Biden administration officials “were well aware of the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination,” yet “opted to withhold issuing a formal warning to the public for months about the safety concerns, jeopardizing the health of young Americans.” (FDA approves new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna.)

What was I saying about Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est la Même Chose (The More Things Change. . . .)?

Donald John Trump will never admit that his warped "Operation Warp Speed," based as it was on the use of fetal cells derived from aborted babies and filled with various toxic agents designed to injure and kill people, created a health disaster, and the pro-abortion Robert Francis Kennedy, who did so much good work during the scamdemic, is showing the world that he is just another Kennedy in public life who is willing to trim his sails when he thinks that it is necessary to do so. 

The FDA's approval for the latest iteration of the mRNA Covid-19 "vaccines" simply represents another manifestation of the symbiotic relationship between government "regulator" and Big Pharma:

U.S. health is facing a big problem – a problem so dangerous and so obvious, it’s a wonder the media has kept so quiet about it: Our health safety watchdog agencies are in bed with the industries they’re meant to regulate.

In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made combatting this dysfunction, which he refers to as corporate capture, one of the pillars of his health agenda. But now, one of the most dangerous cases of corporate capture in U.S. history threatens to claim more lives than the tens of thousands it has already snatched away. 

At issue is the mRNA “vaccine” lobby, which is pushing for a revolution whereby mRNA shots will be developed for “every imaginable infectious disease.” And the men behind this lobby have enormous sway – men like Larry Ellison, and like the head of the mRNA lobby, Clay Alspach, one of the most powerful government health policy influencers of late.

The sway of men like Ellison and Alspach should be setting off alarm bells for every single American, considering that mRNA shots have been one of the most dangerous substances ever approved (albeit under emergency use authorization) and promoted by U.S. authorities. Not only have they triggered a reported 38,615 deaths and 2,669,318 adverse events (with an unknown additional number caused by the mRNA shots but attributed to the virus); they have been linked to an explosion in cancer.

The dangers of mRNA shots are so well documented that 11 states have thus far pursued bans on them.

A cozy relationship: the mRNA lobby and US regulators

Alspach personifies the cozy relationship between U.S. health regulators and the mRNA lobby. He is the executive director of the Alliance for mRNA Medicines (AMM), founded in November 2023, after reports had emerged of massive numbers of deaths and injuries caused by the mRNA “vaccines.” The very self-described mission of the lobby group AMM, excerpted by Dr. Robert Malone, raises red flags.

For example, AMM calls for regulators to “develop a specific regulatory framework for mRNA,” which suggests mRNA products will be held to a different standard than other medical products, raising safety concerns. 

“This regulatory environment would enable continued flexibility and speed in development of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics around the world,” AMM writes. In other words, the same speed – meaning lack of testing for safety and effectiveness – with which mRNA shots were released in the U.S. is necessary for continued mRNA rollouts. Could this be because taking the time to carefully study them will make their dangers even clearer?

Worse, “AMM is also promoting international harmonization and cooperation among regulatory authorities across the globe to propel mRNA technology forward in all its potential uses.”

 A “harmonization” of regulatory authorities would mean these authorities are not autonomous but subject to the greater “authority” of AMM and its interests – that is, captured by the mRNA lobby. This is exactly what regulatory bodies are not supposed to do!

Similarly, AMM applauds the “high level of coordination between industry and regulators” that “enabled development, approval and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine in record time.” Again, to coordinate, or “act in harmonious combination,” is directly contrary to the very mission and modus operandi of a regulator that must be able to act in opposition to industry when needed.

Alspach can exploit “revolving door” privileges in his current role as a health lobbyist since he formerly served as Chief Health Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, an extraordinarily influential position. In this role, he “established a national system for drug supply chain security (Drug Quality and Security Act)” and led legislative work on “biopreparedness and security, public and private medical research,” and other health initiatives. 

These domains are extremely broad and touch upon mRNA shot development. We may ask: To what extent has Alspach helped lay the groundwork for the Warp Speed’s deployment of the COVID mRNA shots?

Peter Marks, America’s former FDA vaccine chief (who left his role temporarily to become Operation Warp Speed vaccine chief) has also been cozy with AMM, having been a keynote speaker for AMM’s initial meeting, even as he acted as FDA regulator. 

The battle for America’s health

Dr. Malone has pointed out that enthusiasm over mRNA shot development has been “chilled” by suspicion of the technology, fueled by the collateral damage of Operation Warp Speed. In response, the mRNA vaccine lobby has launched a “strategic communications offensive” touting mRNA shots as treatments for infectious disease as well as “many of the same chronic conditions targeted by Kennedy’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ initiative,” Malone noted.

Malone names Kennedy as the mRNA lobby’s most feared enemy, and I believe he is correct in his assessment here. But even Kennedy may not be able to stop further rollouts of dangerous mRNA technology. The health establishment and its constituent players, such as pharma companies, have a way of throwing their weight around, I suspect often through covert threats. 

How else does one explain Kennedy’s 180-degree reversal in which he promoted the same MMR vaccines he has long fervently opposed, after becoming Health and Human Services Secretary? Less than a month before supporting these vaccines on X, Kennedy told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the measles vaccine leads to “deaths every year” and that it causes “all the illnesses” of the disease.

Ultimately, it is up to us to educate ourselves as best we can about any drugs, vaccines, or any health treatments being released. Because of corporate capture, we must look to voices independent of the health establishment and the government. It is wise to listen to both supporters and critics of any given treatment. How have they come to their position? Do they have related personal experience? Do they deeply understand the mechanisms at work? Has their testimony or experience been replicated?

In an age when people are slandered as purveyors of “misinformation” for simply seeking to spread the truth, we must work hard to continue to seek it, and we must not back down from sharing it. (Government is in bed with the mRNA vaccine lobby and Americans should be concerned.)

Indeed, a Greek researcher, Dr, Michael Navradakis, who is associated with the Children’s Health Defense organization, has noted that very few people are talking about the excess deaths being caused by the mRNA jabs five years after the so-called socially engineered “pandemic,” which was always about social control and had nothing to do about public health:

Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, excess deaths remain high in most Western countries, where mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were widely administered, but levels are lower in countries where mRNA vaccines were less commonly used, according to medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D.

On his YouTube show this week, Campbell analyzed excess death figures from Our World in Data for 20 countries. He examined the differences in excess death figures across countries with varying mRNA COVID-19 vaccination rates.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), excess deaths associated with COVID-19 are defined as “the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time periods and expected numbers of deaths in the same time periods.”

“It’s the end of May 2025, and we’re still seeing excess deaths in most Western countries, but not in Eastern countries. What could the difference possibly be?” Campbell asked.

Excess deaths remain high in the U.S., where between 2020 and early 2025, they were at least 10% higher than the 2015 to 2019 average. Excess deaths in the U.S. spiked in the second half of 2021 through early 2022, reaching 46%.

“We see excess deaths in the United States a bit above the 10% mark for quite a long period of time,” Campbell said. “This is an ongoing issue compared to 2015 to 2019 levels.”

CDC data published in 2023 showed 155,000 excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 among people ages 15-64.

Campbell observed similarly high excess death rates in several other “highly vaccinated” Western countries during the same period, hovering around 10% in Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Singapore and the U.K., and between 10% and 20% in Canada and Ireland.

“This looks like a huge amount of excess deaths in addition to those lost as a result of the pandemic and the mismanagement and malmanagement during the pandemic,” Campbell said.

Referring to South Korea, another “highly vaccinated” country where, as recently as last year, the excess death rate was over 20%, Campbell said these are “horrific figures, which are simply not being talked about.”

Excess death figures ‘unprecedented,’ raise ‘serious concerns’

According to Campbell, excess deaths should have decreased during the pandemic after an initial spike of deaths among those who are most vulnerable.

“The people that might have gone on to die in the next few years that died, kind of all died all of a sudden in 2020. So, we should see a reduction in excess deaths, as we see in Eastern European and other countries.”

Campbell referred to excess death figures from Our World in Data for several non-Western countries, including Armenia, Georgia, Romania and Russia, where the rates from late 2021 on have remained below average.

“This is exactly what we would expect as a result of the pandemic, where vulnerable people for various reasons are no longer with us,” Campbell said. He noted that in some of these countries, including Russia, “they didn’t have any mRNA vaccine rollout, coincidentally.”

Campbell suggested the highest rates of excess deaths are found in countries where the administration of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was most relevant. Responding to criticisms that correlation does not equal causation, Campbell said that, at the very least, correlation warrants further study.

“What is causing this causality may be adjudicated by larger-scale associations. So, do we have large-scale associations consistent between countries? Have we noticed that it’s consistent between countries … where other explanations are unlikely?” Campbell asked.

Campbell also referenced a 2024 paper in BMJ Public Health analyzing excess deaths in 47 Western countries between 2020 and 2022. According to the paper, “Excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic has been substantial,” reaching almost 3.1 million across the countries sampled during this period.

“This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns,” the paper stated. “This insight into the overall all-cause excess mortality since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic is an important first step for future health crisis policy decision-making.”

According to the paper, contributors include “COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccination programmes.”

“Differentiating between the various causes is challenging,” the authors said, citing differences in how deaths are recorded and how causes of death are attributed across countries, while “Consensus is lacking in the medical community regarding when a deceased infected with COVID-19 should be registered as a COVID-19 death.”

Increasing number of studies link excess deaths to vaccines, pandemic measures

In the past year, several peer-reviewed studies have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic countermeasures likely contributed to the rise in excess deaths.

A study published last month in the journal Scientific Reports found that, in a sample of seven hospitals in Athens, Greece, during 2022, nearly half of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 were unrelated to the virus.

The BMJ Public Health paper also noted that research has “confirmed profound under-reporting of adverse events, including deaths, after immunization” and that consensus is “lacking in the medical community regarding concerns that mRNA vaccines might cause more harm than initially forecasted.”

A study released last year of excess mortality in 125 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found that higher-than-average excess deaths were due to the public health establishment’s response and the COVID-19 vaccines.

A peer-reviewed study published in March in Discover Medicine found that Japan recorded an abnormal increase in excess deaths in the years since the COVID-19 vaccines were introduced.

A peer-reviewed study published in July 2024 in the European Society of Medicine’s official journal, Medical Research Archives, found that the number of excess deaths in Australia is positively correlated with the number of COVID-19 booster vaccinations received.

A June 2024 study published in the journal Microorganisms showed that COVID-19 vaccines were linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in Italy.

And a February 2024 study published in the Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health found a “substantial, statistically significant” increase in mortality in Cyprus from all causes in 2021 and 2022 following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The BMJ Public Health paper called upon policymakers “to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.”

Campbell agreed. Noting that there has been no such investigation in the U.K., Campbell said he is “disappointed” that governments, the judicial system and coroners have not examined the possible causes contributing to an increase in excess deaths.

“Maybe lives aren’t important. Maybe we’ve got more important things to do,” Campbell said. “I would’ve thought human life is pretty important, but hey, maybe I was wrong.” (Why Aren’t We Talking About Excess Deaths in Countries With High mRNA Vaccine Rates?.)

As correct as Dr. Campbell is about the cause of all the excess deaths in the past five years and the utter unwillingness on the part of the globalist authorities to even admit the possibility of a linkage between the Wuhan Virus jabs and those excess deaths, he seems not to realize the medical profession globally has been attacked the inviolability of innocent human life for a century now, starting with its promotion of contraception in the 1920s and then, by logical extension, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, followed in turn by its manufactured myth of “brain death” for purposes of vital organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged patients, palliative care/hospice, and all kinds of physician assisted-suicide and euthanasia, including the great advances being made the promotion of eugenic euthanasia in Canada, Belgium, and The Netherlands.

The Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King made the rise and triumph of raw utilitarianism possible as men will start to play God when they do not see each other in the Divine impress, reject the existence, no less the value, of redemptive suffering, and scoff at the authority of the Catholic Church to guide men in all that pertains to the good souls according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Such overweening arrogance must lead to the create of a caste of elitists who consider themselves the high priests and priestesses of the world who possess who have arrogated unto themselves the power to decide that which no human has the authority to do, namely, to dispense with innocent human life as they see fit and to control the masses with all their schemes of psychological manipulation.

Remember, many, although not all, of the deaths associated with the SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan virus were caused not by the virus, which was mostly nonlethal in nature except in the cases of the elderly or those with compromised immune systems, but by the so-called “medical protocols” advanced by the likes of the sociopath named Anthony Fauci that urged physicians to avoid early intervention to treat the virus when a patient was first diagnosed with it and to warn against, if not entirely forbid, the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and large doses of Vitamins C, D, Quercetin, and Zinc. These phony baloney protocols caused people to die by delaying treatment before they were put on ventilators and then denied the treatments mentioned above, and one mother, whose daughter died because of these death-dealing protocols, is now having her day in court:

Jury selection began today in a “landmark” trial alleging the wrongful death of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who died in a Wisconsin hospital days after being admitted for a COVID-19 infection and low oxygen levels.

It’s the first jury trial in the U.S. for a death listed as COVID-19 on the death certificate.

Grace’s family sued Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in April 2023, and filed an amended complaint in July 2023, alleging the hospital’s COVID-19 treatment protocols directly resulted in Grace’s death in October 2021.

The lawsuit includes an allegation of medical battery, a standard of intentional harm beyond medical negligence by doctors and other providers.

According to the complaint, the hospital was financially incentivized to implement COVID-19 protocols that allegedly caused Grace’s death, including administration of three contraindicated medications — Precedex, lorazepam and morphine — and that it implemented a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order over her family’s objections.

The State of Wisconsin Circuit Court for Outagamie County will hear the case. In a media advisory issued last week, Grace’s family said the trial will examine allegations of negligence, lack of informed consent, and medical battery and that the case “could have broader implications for accountability in U.S. healthcare.”

The lawsuit names 14 defendants, including Ascension Health, five medical doctors and four John Doe medical providers, two registered nurses, and the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Family Compensation Fund.

“This bellwether case is about something much bigger than mere malpractice, and its impact will reverberate nationally,” Grace’s father, Scott Schara, said in July 2023. In November 2023, Schara told CHD.TV that the key purpose of his lawsuit is to overturn “a legislative immunity” surrounding the medical profession.

Attorney Warner Mendenhall, who leads the Schara family’s legal team, said during the CHD.TV interview that the case is “helping to carve a pathway for other families.”

Mendenhall said:

“Our goal is simple: Save lives. That’s why this case is first about the lack of informed consent — a battery — leading to negligence and malpractice, which then resulted in wrongful death. Moreover, this case is about protecting the public from doctors unilaterally placing DNR orders on patients. If we would have had informed consent, Grace would be with us today.”

Schara told The Defender in August 2024 that through his lawsuit, he seeks not only to obtain justice for his daughter’s death but also to expose broader corruption in the medical and legal systems.

“I’m doing this because my daughter is dead and I do not want this to happen to anyone else, including the defendants’ kids,” Schara said.

Family alleges hospital was incentivized to implement deadly COVID protocol

Grace’s ordeal began on Oct. 1, 2021, when she tested positive for COVID-19 using a home testing kit. Five days later, her oxygen saturation had dropped to 88%. Her family took her to a local urgent care facility and, subsequently, to Ascension St. Elizabeth’s Hospital.

At the hospital, the emergency room physician told Schara that his daughter would be placed “on oxygen and steroids for three or four days” and would return home.

However, the lawsuit alleges that Grace was given a knowingly lethal blend of drugs without informed consent from her parents. When Grace’s father protested, an armed guard escorted him out of the hospital.

According to the complaint, doctors and nurses “fraudulently labeled [his daughter] as a DNR [Do Not Resuscitate] patient, administered a lethal drug cocktail known to kill” and blocked attempts to save Grace’s life.

Schara told The Defender in August 2023 that in the time between Schara’s removal from the hospital and his daughter’s death, Grace was sedated with Precedex — a sedative produced by Pfizer “that should never be used with COVID,” and that doctors increased the dose six times.

Hospital staff also repeatedly asked Grace’s parents to approve placing her on a ventilator. They refused.

“We never approved it, nor should anybody approve a ventilator when somebody has a COVID diagnosis,” Schara said in August 2023. “A ventilator has a 90% kill rate with COVID, so why do it? And it’s simply because of the financial incentives.”

Schara was referring to financial bonuses available through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES Act, for hospitals that applied the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 hospital protocols. The protocols include the use of ventilators and the implementation of DNR orders.

Although Grace’s family didn’t agree to placing her on a ventilator, Schara said her room was nevertheless “classified as an ICU room” — a classification that brings hospitals more money under CDC protocols, he said — “even though Grace never changed rooms, nor did the care change.”

On Oct. 13, 2021, the day Grace died, doctors entered a DNR order for her without her family’s knowledge. Schara told The Defender in August 2023 that this order was “illegal.” He also said that doctors subsequently restrained Grace and administered lorazepam — an anxiety and seizure medication — and morphine in a 29-minute window.

“Grace was getting the maximum allowable dose of Precedex, two doses of lorazepam and morphine, which nobody could have survived. That’s what you give hospice patients in their last half hour of life,” Schara said.

‘You can only conclude that the money was behind it’

According to Schara, the hospital stonewalled the family’s requests for Grace’s records, initially producing only about 300 pages. A medical malpractice nurse who reviewed the records told the family approximately 1,000 pages were missing, explaining this was “standard practice.”

On filing the lawsuit, the Schara family received 948 additional pages of documents. Lawyers told the family “there are a lot more records” that the hospital would be obliged to produce through a subpoena.

Schara told The Defender in August 2023 that the family reviewed the records “with a fine-tooth comb” to figure out what happened. “You look at the phone records, the detailed medical records … you can only conclude that the money was behind it.”

In October 2023, the court rejected the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. At a pre-trial hearing on May 19 and 20, the court rejected additional motions by the defendants, allowing the full case to go to trial.

Since Grace’s death, Schara has become an advocate for victims of the COVID-19 hospital protocols and their families. He launched a podcast, “Deprogramming with Grace’s Dad,” and produced a documentary, “Breaking the Oath: Unauthorized,” chronicling Grace’s and other victims’ stories.

“We’re … really into this to shed light on the corruption going on in both the medical-industrial complex and the legal-industrial complex,” Schara told The Defender in August 2024. “We’re hoping Grace’s case exposes that and sheds light on this evil.” (Trial Gets Underway in Death of Teen Whose Family Alleges Was Killed by Hospital COVID Protocols.)

Monstrous.

Just absolutely monstrous.

Then again, as noted so frequently in my “Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus” series, hospitals were given bonuses of up to $50,000 for each diagnosed case of the Wuhan Virus and more money it the case of each death attributed to it. Financial incentives have also been doled out to more than a handful of patients to get themselves jabbed with the death-dealing and injury-causing “vaccines.”

The medical industrial and legal industrial complexes are indeed very corrupt.

As we know, however, officials of the government of the United States of America have been lying to the American rather consistently since July 4, 1776, so many times in fact that I see no need of repeating once again the examples I have used to demonstrate such duplicity and deceit, especially during each of the nation’s starting, including the War for Independence itself. However, there are always new examples of such deceit and the Biden administration, which was built on the deception that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., was not suffering from dementia (which is why he was hidden in the basement of his home in Wilmington, Delaware, in 2020 under the guise of travel being limited by the scamdemic), practiced deceit with an arrogance that might be unparalleled in American history, and that is saying or thing or do.

Consider the deception used by Biden administration to claim that East Palestine, Ohio, was safe after carcinogenic toxins escaped into the air following a freight train derailment on February 3. 2023:

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration admitted possible cancer-causing toxins were spread in East Palestine, Ohio, following the Norfolk Southern train derailment in 2023, explosive new emails show, despite the White House insisting residents were safe.

“The occurrence of a cancer-cluster in EP [East Palestine] is not zero,” FEMA recovery leader James McPherson wrote in a March 29, 2024, email to other public health officials — a little more than a year after the crash.

“As you all are aware, the first 48 hours of the fire created a really toxic plume,” he said in the chain of communications, which were first reported by NewsNation.

Just two months earlier, President Biden had excoriated “multimillion-dollar railroad companies transporting toxic chemicals” for the fiasco — but praised his administration’s “herculean efforts” to resolve the “vast majority” of East Palestine’s problems.

The crash spewed harmful chemicals into the air and resulted in 115,000 gallons’ worth of carcinogenic vinyl chloride undergoing an open burn — displacing residents and leading to reports of strange illnesses as well as the death of livestock in the weeks following the Feb. 3, 2023, disaster.

Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, showed up on Feb. 22 with TV cameras in tow to capture himself drinking from the local water supply, and months later claimed unequivocally that people in East Palestine were “not in danger.”

“Since the disaster, EPA has collected more than 100 million air monitoring data points and more than 25 thousand samples in and around the community,” Regan said in an Oct. 17, 2023, statement.

“This data collection continues, and ongoing science-based reviews show that residents of East Palestine are not in danger from contaminated drinking water, soil, or air from the derailment.”

But a watchdog group that has been investigating the toxic fallout from the train derailment said the Biden administration’s approach was “flawed” from the start — and has now released emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests to prove it.

“They didn’t always test for the right chemicals; they didn’t test in the right locations; they didn’t have the right detection limits,” Government Accountability Project investigator Lesley Pacey told The Post, saying the Biden admin wasn’t “worrying about public health” but, rather “public reassurances.”

“They delayed testing for dioxin, and then when they did the testing for dioxin — and also did the testing in people’s homes for other chemicals — they used Norfolk Southern contractors, and those contractors used equipment that wasn’t correct,” said Pacey, who’s been investigating the incident.

“They completely botched this event from the very beginning.”

So-called “ASPECT” planes that monitor air quality weren’t deployed due to apparent bad weather until four days after the derailment, she added, when they should have been flown within eight hours of the incident.

The federal response also lacked robust monitoring of the water supply and ignored agency policies in order to burn the harmful chemicals, according to Pacey, allowing East Palestine natives to get “very, very ill.”

The new emails — including batches from FEMA, the EPA, the White House, the National Security Council and the Justice Department, which later settled with Norfolk Southern for $310 million to redress harms to the Ohio community — also show that one year after the chaos admin officials were still discussing the need to develop a “tripwire to identify cancer clusters.”

Biden, who was diagnosed earlier this month with an “aggressive” form of prostate cancer that has already spread to his bones, often claimed that his late son Beau died from a brain cancer possibly caused by exposure to toxic fumes while serving in Iraq.

He also claimed in a 2022 speech that he had cancer due to growing up near oil refineries in Claymont, Delaware, though the White House maintained he was referencing “non-melanoma skin cancers” that had previously been removed. (Biden admin admitted chances of cancer affecting Ohio residents after train crash was 'not zero'.)

As I have written  so many times before, those who have no regard for the eternal laws of God nor have concern for the loss of their immortal souls for all eternity in hell will have no compunction about supporting evils such as the slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and/or surgical  means, sodomy and its related perverse vices, the killing of innocent people by means of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” to facilitate vital organ vivisection and transplantation, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, direct euthanasia, and indirect euthanasia (“palliative care”/hospice), and such people will, after supporting these and related evils, have any compunction whatsoever about lying about anything, including carcinogenic toxins released because of accidents such as those that happened in East Palestine, Ohio, sixteen months ago.

Officials of the administration of the completely self-unaware Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., were not content just to cover-up the facts concerning the Wuhan Virus jabs and East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, to say nothing of the cover-ups of the withdraw of the remaining American personnel, both civilian and military, in Afghanistan, Biden’s own mental deterioration, and the various get-rich-quick schemes of the Biden Family Crime Syndicate, no, they also worked overtime to label those who opposed the “vaccines” and/or helped to expose the injuries and deaths they caused as “domestic terrorists”:

WASHINGTON, D.C.,  (LifeSiteNews) — Newly declassified documents show that beginning in December, 2021, the Biden administration chose to designate a vast swath of Americans as “Domestic Violent Extremists” simply because they opposed the COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates.

The bombshell news was broken this morning by independent investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag, and Catherine Herridge on their X subscription accounts. 

The shocking designation “created an ‘articulable purpose’ for FBI or other government agents to open an ‘assessment’ of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation, said a former FBI agent,” the trio reported.  

“The idea that the Biden administration viewed millions of Americans as a terrorist threat sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s not,” wrote Shellenberger. 

The FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) asserted in their 2021 report that “criticism of mandates as ‘prominent narratives’ related to violent extremism,” including “the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.” 

The just-declassified report, released by Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, zeroed in on Americans who “characterize COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as evidence of government overreach.” (New evidence confirms Biden admin designated opponents of COVID mandates as 'domestic violent extremists'.)

Obviously, the Biden administration’s officials labeled anyone who criticized their policies as “anti-government extremists” and even got a majority on the Supreme Court of the United States of America to agree that their censorship of “disinformation” was permitted under the Constitution of the United States of America. Here is a reminder of how the Court upheld the Biden administration’s open effort to work with Big Tech to censor dissenting views:

The latest absurdity is another piece of sophistry authored by a supposedly “constitutionalist” member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, June 26, 2024, that overturned the decision of Judge Terry Doughty of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Louisiana to grant an injunction to prevent officials within the  administration of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., to continue coercing Facebook and other social media outlets to censor what the White House fascists considered to be “disinformation” about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the nature of the virus itself, and the deadly effects of the “vaccines” that the administration had mandated to be given to all, although not most, Federal employees.

As a review, here is a report about Judge Doughty’s decision that was issued on July 4, 2023:

A federal judge has blocked Biden administration officials from contacting social media companies in a landmark order targeting government censorship and suppression of online postings.

US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, determined Tuesday that the White House likely colluded with Big Tech to censor protected speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“During … a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty wrote in his 155-page order.

The judge concluded that the plaintiffs, led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, were likely to succeed and issued a preliminary injunction limiting dozens of Biden administration officials from attempting to coordinate with social media giants to remove content.

Officials subject to the injunction include White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, employees of the Justice Department and FBI, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

The case was brought forth by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is now a GOP senator from the Show-Me State.

Schmitt and Landry alleged in their suit that the government infringed the First Amendment and cited a litany of examples as backup, including the suppression of The Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden and discussion of the so-called COVID-19 lab leak theory.

“Ultimately, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not shown that the choice to suppress free speech must in law be deemed to be that of the government. This Court disagrees,” Doughty noted.

During proceedings in the case, top former Biden administration officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and onetime White House press secretary Jen Psaki were summoned for depositions.

At one point in his 155-page order, Doughty underscored that “each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature,” which he called “quite telling.”

In one example the judge cited, White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account meant to be Finnegan Biden, the president’s granddaughter and offspring of Hunter Biden.

“Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” Flaherty’s Feb. 6, 2021, request read. “Please remove this account immediately.” According to the ruling, the parody was zapped within 45 minutes of the request.

“This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,” Doughty wrote. “American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country … the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey cheered Doughty’s decree, which is subject to appeal.

“The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans,” Bailey tweeted. “What a way to celebrate Independence Day.”

A White House official told The Post Tuesday that the Department of Justice is reviewing the injunction and “will evaluate 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 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.” (Judge restricts Biden officials from colluding with Big Tech)

Judge Doughty’s decision was courageous, and it was absolutely correct both constitutionally and morally. (Please see the appendix for more on this case as excerpted from Supreme Delusions Enable Supreme Tyrants to Supremely Crush Dissent.)

This kind of censorship has been global in nature as government officials across the world, having convinced themselves that they can play God, continue to readily deny the harm caused by the Wuhan Virus “vaccines” as “conspiracy theories” as is relatively easy to shut one’s eyes to empirical facts of the natural order when one shut his mind and closed his heart to the truths of the supernatural order that have been revealed to and safeguarded by Holy Mother Church.

Many physicians themselves, tools as many of them are of Big Pharma in a truly symbiotic universe, simply reject any and all hard evidence about the injuries caused by the Wuhan Virus vaccine as from “unknown causes” as happened in the case of a Canadian man named Michael Oesch:

(LifeSiteNews) — Canadian filmmaker Dean Rainey is shining the spotlight on the experimental COVID-19 vaccines with a new 80-minute documentary detailing the case of a Canadian man who suffered a crippling injury following his reception of the shots.

Titled “Why Can’t We Talk About This?”, the documentary explores the story of Michael Oesch, an erstwhile healthy and active man whose health has degenerated after receiving his fourth shot of the COVID mRNA vaccine in October 2022. About 36 hours after getting inoculated, Oesch experienced challenges walking and before long, began to suffer from paralysis.

After undergoing an MRI, Oesch learned that he had suffered severe spinal lesions, as local paper Norfolk Today reported. Despite the fact that all this followed shortly after his fourth dose of the COVID shot, doctors did not give Oesch a clear diagnosis and “labelled his condition ‘idiopathic’—of unknown cause.”

Believing that he had a spike protein-related vaccine injury, Oesch faced yet another hurdle when his application to Canada’s federal Vaccine Injury Support Program was delayed. Rainey’s documentary details how Oesch has fought for treatment, support, and official acknowledgement of his injuries in a world hostile to anything negative about vaccines.

In remarks quoted by Norfolk Today, Oesch stated that no one is willing to admit that he has suffered a vaccine injury.

“No one will say it officially. And without that, I’m being left behind,” Oesch lamented, who, at the moment of writing, resides in a long-term care facility in Dundas, Ontario.

Norfolk Today detailed that Rainey’s film has faced some opposition, as “some theaters have refused to screen the film—and haven’t even allowed Rainey to rent their facilities.”

In comments cited by Simcoe Reformer, filmmaker Rainey said:

I got interested in Michael’s story when I started noticing social media posts that made me think he wasn’t well. Four or five months later, he reached out to me to share his story about how 36 hours after he received a booster shot, he started to become paralyzed.

In a written response to LifeSiteNews, Rainey elaborated on why he decided to proceed with the film despite facing opposition and having limited funding:

When we started to film my friend Michael’s story, we didn’t know what we would get or if we would get anything. I knew there would be lots of opposition to this and that weighed on me heavily. Who wants to make something no one will ever see? But as we continued to film, we discovered new information, and we were introduced to doctors and scientists who would talk to us. I discovered smoke… so I went looking for the fire. Before we knew it, we had put together enough material and story to make a feature-length documentary. We really made it with the just resources we had and chipped away at the story and dug into the science over time, making sure we got things correctly. I’m quite a stubborn director so if you try to shut me down, I tend to double down in an effort to be heard.

When LifeSiteNews asked Rainey to describe the reactions of audiences to his film, the filmmaker replied:

I can see the momentum changing in our direction, as more and more people feel free to speak up about their experiences, or those of people they know. There are people all over the world negatively affected by these mRNA vaccines and Michael is just one example. This is a global issue. (New documentary highlights plight of Canadian man severely injured after COVID shot.)

I don’t know whether “momentum” is changing as most people are oblivious to these facts and are likely to dismiss evidence that contradicts that blithe acceptance of assurances proffered by “experts” that the “vaccines” are “safe and effective,” so “safe and effective” that authorities in Australia, have shut down its Vaccine Safety and Efficacy Tral website to prevent people from learning exactly how unsafe and ineffective the bioengineered jabs have been and continue to be:

(LifeSiteNews) — Australia’s public health system, Queensland Health, has permanently halted its COVID-19 Vaccination Safety and Efficacy Trial (QoVAX), arguably one of the largest ever studies comparing vaccinated patients to unvaccinated ones.

In a letter addressed to QoVAX participants in March 2025, Metro North Health verified that authorities were permanently ceasing the study, destroying all samples and data as a result.

“Metro North Health has determined that, for a range of reasons including the many mutations of the COVID-19 virus and similar studies from Australia and worldwide, there is no longer a scientific and public health need to retain these biological samples for future study,” read the letter, dated March 19, 2025.

“Therefore, these samples will be appropriately sterilised and disposed of. All study data collected as part of the QoVAX-SET study will be archived for the specified time-period as required by law, however, it will not be accessed or used for any future purpose.”

The permanent end to the study comes after it was announced in June 2023 that the study was being defunded with no official reason, affecting various unpublished research papers that were almost complete.

According to a report by Canberra Daily, the QoVAX Safety and Efficacy Statewide Study was initially created “to better understand the short, medium and long-term impacts of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines in Queensland,” and comprised “10,000 adult participants across 86% of postcodes, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, generating over 100,000 biospecimens and 11 million data points.”

“With its digitally-integrated biobank and linked data repository, the study promised to enable ongoing research addressing epidemiology, genomics, virology, and immunology, as well as unforeseen complications of COVID vaccines, and long COVID outcomes,” the outlet added.

Notably, QoVAX was one of the only real-world studies to have access to a “comparison set” of participants who had been inoculated, but had not contracted the COVID-19 virus.

Some of Queensland’s most prominent research groups, such as QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, the University of Queensland (UQ), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), James Cook University and Griffith University, participated in the study.

Since its 2023 defunding, specialists, politicians, participants, and the media have questioned the Queensland government’s decision to halt the QoVAX study.

In a statement to Parliament dated March 2023, Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick, an outspoken advocate for vaccinated individuals injured by the experimental COVID-19 shots, said:

Why has the Queensland health department withdrawn funding for its award-winning QoVAX research program studying the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines?

This program is the creation of 27 highly skilled researchers, health professionals and administrative staff. They were supported by multiple partners, including 12 health service agencies, five universities and two private pathology services. QoVAX was strongly supported by Queenslanders, rapidly enrolling more than 10,000 participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from 85 percent of postcodes across the state.

Countries like Australia are uniquely placed to investigate vaccine efficacy because their diverse populations were, until late in the pandemic, relatively free of the COVID-19 virus. The QoVAX team didn’t just collect the standard data. Participants provided information on environmental and social determinants of health, and provided biospecimens of blood and saliva that have been used to derive genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic datasets that will shed light on how the novel vaccines impact the immune system.Studying immune response is a vital part of assessing vaccines, and QoVAX’s work is consistent with similar studies completed on other vaccines.

The research is particularly important because two new vaccine delivery platforms were used: modified messenger RNA and vector DNA. It is particularly important because the original trials of these vaccines were meant to last for two years, but the placebo group was vaccinated only after two months. The study and the biobank have enormous international significance, yet, instead of answering vital questions about why Australia, one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, had such high excess mortality and so many cases of long COVID in vaccinated people, the study is being forced to close down.

All Australians deserve answers to the questions these vaccines have raised.

QoVAX Director Professor Janet Davies likewise lambasted the move as “incredibly disappointing.”

In like manner, Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts slammed the decision to destroy all data and samples from the QoVAX study, declaring in a Facebook post:

Losing the last evidence that could inform a truly objective assessment of the effects of the injections wouldn’t just be a tragedy, it could be a crime. I’m putting Queensland Health bureaucrats on notice. Do not destroy these samples and evidence, allow the study to complete so that the data can be shared for all Australians. (Australian state health department permanently halts massive COVID vaccine study, scraps data.

So-called “public health” officials believe that they are accountable to no one for their mendacious sociopathic arrogance that is responsible for the injuries and deaths of countless numbers of human beings who trusted in their “expert” medical “advice” to which even conciliar revolutionaries such as Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV remain enslaved.

We’re always told that vaccines were a medical marvel that safely ended the dark age of infectious disease. However, when the actual records are examined, they often abjectly failed to prevent those diseases, and worse still, frequently caused outbreaks and severely injured many of the recipients.

This in part resulted from the inherent toxicity of vaccines and in part because manufacturing challenges regularly resulted in hot lots being released. Rather than address this, the vaccine industry chose to create a variety of strategies to conceal those issues, such as enshrining the dogma “all vaccines are safe” and giving blanket legal immunity to all the “safe” vaccines.

The Toxicity Bell Curve

When humans are exposed to toxins, the reactions to them are distributed such that severe injuries are much rarer. As a result, many of the more subtle, common reactions typically go unrecognized.

Because of this, if a product causes a significant number of deaths (e.g., the COVID mRNA vaccines), that’s often the tip of the iceberg and far larger number of injuries lie under the surface (e.g., polling showed that showed 34% of those vaccinated for COVID reported minor side effects and 7% reported significant side effects).

Sudden Infant Deaths

This sadly also holds true for infant deaths, and since its creation, the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine has been associated with those deaths.
For example, in 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered which belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s.
Note: early vaccine experiments (including DPT) were conducted in the 1960s to 1970s at Irish care homes, and the test subjects included babies and handicapped children.

Likewise, as detailed by Sir Graham Wilson, in the early 1900s, there were over a dozen cases in the medical literature (and likely far more that weren’t documented) where groups of children received an incorrectly prepared diphtheria vaccine, and collectively, thousands became severely ill, with hundreds suffering an agonizing death.

A wave of deaths hence followed DPT’s adoption, which like those following the COVID vaccines, became a “mysterious syndrome,” initially being called “crib death” and then “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS). In turn, a few doctors saw this and spoke out against it.

• James Howenstine, MD in 2003 stated:

The incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is at age 2 to 4 months, the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given to a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.

Note: it has always astounded me that the medical profession knows SIDS peaks at exactly 2, 4, and 6 months of age, but cannot connect that to childhood vaccines being given at the exact same time.

• Robert Mendelsohn M.D. in his 1987 book How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor wrote:

My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.”

Note: Although I believe pertussis (DPT) is the vaccine most strongly linked to SIDS, other vaccines also have an association (e.g., a 2007 VAERS analysis and a 1999, legislative testimony by Philip Incao, MD made compelling cases also linking SIDS to the hepatitis B vaccine).

• In 1957, Archie Kalokerinos M.D., desiring to serve the people, requested to be stationed in the neglected rural Aboriginal communities, as their infant mortality rate was 10% (whereas it was 2% in the surrounding white communities). Many diseases were rampant there (pneumonia, severe ear infections, severe infant irritability, and a frequent inability to feed the afflicted children), but were ignored and blamed on the uncivilized habits of the mothers.

Note: the full (and quite profound) interview can be viewed here.

Archie eventually realized these deaths were due to severe nutritional deficiencies and quickly saved many lives (e.g., by injecting IV vitamin C or giving zinc).

After the infant death rate climbed to 50% following an infant vaccination campaign, he realized that in the same way infections depleted vitamin C, vaccines did too, and rapidly stopped the vaccination deaths with injected vitamin C. Additionally, he also discovered that vaccinating a child who was currently ill was frequently lethal (which, to varying degrees, has also been reported throughout the medical literature).

Note: Kalokerinos also found early breastfeeding was critical for infant health and preventing death, but unfortunately, colonial forces had shifted them towards formula—mirroring a pernicious trend seen globally. Many have since found breastfeeding counteracts many of the harms of vaccination (e.g., breastfeeding halves the rate of SIDS)—all of which is discussed here.

Later, he used vitamin C to treat many other conditions too (e.g., otherwise fatal measles cases)—something coincidentally also being done by another pioneering doctor in America.

Note: Kalokerinos also showed that mothers accused of shaking their babies to death had in fact died of scurvy. Similarly, as I show here, the diagnosis “shaken baby syndrome” (invented in the 1970s) was frequently used to wrongfully convict parents whose children died in their sleep after vaccination (and dovetails with the fact parents who’ve just lost their infants to vaccines at their most vulnerable moment are often then put through a subsequent nightmare by law enforcement).

Note: Obomsawin also highlighted that when Japan moved the DPT injections from 3-5 months to 24 months of age, there was an 85-90% reduction in DPT brain damage and SIDS cases, and a 60% decrease in the overall infant mortality rate.

A Shot in the Dark

In addition to causing death, the DPT vaccine frequently caused brain injuries. As the media had not yet been bought out by the pharmaceutical industry (due to a 1997 FTC decision legalizing pharmaceutical television advertisements), programs critical of vaccination would occasionally air such as a 1982 one highlighting the profound disability being caused by the DPT vaccine.

Many parents with DPT injured children saw this program, called NBC and then were connected by NBC, forming “Dissatisfied Parents Together” one of the original vaccine safety groups, and in 1985, DPT, A Shot in the Dark, was published.

DPT, A Shot in the Dark highlighted that:

• As early as 1933, there were published reports of infant deaths shortly after DPT shots, including some where autopsies attributed the deaths to vaccination.

• Simultaneous identical twin deaths are an extraordinarily rare event and are hence considered a gold standard for establishing causality, and in 1946, two twins died (on their backs) within 24 hours of their second DPT vaccine— something also shown in 1987, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2013 case reports.

• Researchers like Dr. William Torch (who analyzed 72 sequential SIDS cases and then over 200) showed that these deaths clustered shortly after vaccination—something which could not be explained by chance.

• The FDA’s pertussis vaccine specialist, Charles Manclark had stated in 1976 that:

Pertussis vaccine is one of the more troublesome products to produce and assay. As an example, the pertussis vaccine has one of the highest failure rates of all products submitted to the Bureau of Biologics for testing and release. Approximately 15-20 percent of all lots that pass the manufacturer’s tests fail to pass the Bureau’s tests.

• In 1978–79, eleven infants in Tennessee died within eight days of receiving a DPT vaccine; nine had been vaccinated with the same lot—Wyeth #64201—and five (four from that lot) died within 24 hours. Statistical analysis showed that such a clustering of deaths would occur by chance only 3% of the time; later estimates put the probability even lower—between 0.2% and 0.5%.Shooter’s Bible ...Sadowski, Robert A.Best Price: $9.05Buy New $20.00(as of 12:31 UTC - Details). . . .

One of the saddest things about vaccine injuries is that children lack the ability to communicate how vaccines have injured them or refuse further immunizations. In turn, one of the most heartbreaking things I’ve had to witness in medicine are children, in whatever way they can, trying to tell their parents or doctors and nurses that vaccines are hurting them, but are ignored and have something catastrophic happen after they are injected without their consent.

However, now that so many adults (who can communicate) have been injured by the COVID vaccines, the veil has been removed, and an awareness is forming around the potential consequences of vaccination. Secretary Kennedy is now at last beginning the long overdue evaluation of the safety of the vaccines given to our children, and it is imperative we do all that we can to support this investigation being allowed to proceed forward. (The Century of Evidence Vaccines Cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.)

Although I avoid making declarations about end times as I am very conscious of the fact that my own “end times” could occur at any moment (as I writing this commentary, before I fall asleep, from an accident of one kind or another, a heart attack or stroke. etc.), this is the stuff of end times in that the adversary is attempting to produce something beyond human beings (transhumanism) to mock God’s own creative power by using his minions in Big Pharma, Big Science, and Big Medicine to do his bidding for him.

Suffice it to say for the moment, though, that this is all quite monstrous and provides more and more evidence proving the original intent of the vaccines that are corrupted from being derived, no matter how remotely in time, from the stem cells of aborted babies, and of their very nature are meant to cause the very injuries we have been witnessing since for the past one hundred years.

“A Midwestern Doctor” wrote the following report, based upon the pioneering work of Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who was first introduced to the readers of this website in Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda on April 1, 2019, concerning why physicians and other “health professionals” refuse to recognize vaccine injuries caused in patients who have become ill immediately after getting one of a variety of these poisoned jabs:

Suzanne Humphries (and Roman Bystrianyk) did an incredible service to the vaccine safety movement by publishing Dissolving Illusions, a book which clearly demonstrated that the mythology we were sold about vaccines saving the world was hoax, and in reality they caused far more harm than they benefitted people (discussed further here).

Suzanne Humphries embarked on this project, because as a nephrologist, she kept on seeing patients enter kidney failure after a vaccine (or have their kidneys significantly worsen once they received a vaccine at a hospital).

Note: Nephrologists have a somewhat unique position in medicine as if they request for a drug to be discontinued because they suspect it is harming a patients kidneys, other doctors will listen and stop the drug (whereas if a non-nephrologist points out a drug injury to a colleague, they colleague often won’t discontinue it).

“One Monday after picking up the weekend service, a hospital inpatient with kidney failure got very grumpy with me. Seeing him in the middle of his dialysis treatment, I’d asked the usual questions, like “And how long have you been on dialysis?” and the man exploded. “I’ve never been on dialysis! I never had anything wrong, until they gave me that shot.” . . . Working up a lather he almost yelled . . . “I was fine until I had that vaccine!” Taken aback, I asked, “What vaccine did you get? When did you get it, and how do you know your kidneys were fine before?” Apparently he’d told his story to everyone, but had been blown off. Now, he was startled that anyone was even asking sensible questions. So he tumbled the whole story out. After a very thorough investigation and a fine-tooth-combed patient history analysis, which did indeed reveal that his kidney function was perfectly normal a month before, I decided that his words and beliefs had merit”

“After the first man with kidney failure, I began asking other people, with unusual case presentations, whether or not they had been recently vaccinated. Some would become wide-eyed after the question, as if they too had never considered any connection, but in others, the light dawned and after picking up their jaws, they often replied, “YES, it was shortly after that!” Sure enough, the records would show the time relationship. Sometimes violent sickness began on the very day.”

“After three people came in with fulminant kidney failure, temporally related to vaccination, I thought it prudent to bring the cases to the attention of the hospital chief of medical staff. Upon passing him in the hallway, we stopped for the usual cordial robotic small talk: “Hello. How are you? How is the practice going? Are you happy here?” To which the answer for the previous seven years”“had been “Great. Great and yes!” But this time I had news! “We have a problem. I’ve seen three cases of kidney failure in adults shortly after they were vaccinated and two of the three told me they were fine until the vaccine. All of them had documented normal kidney function within two months of the vaccine. What do you think?”

After a short silence, I got to know a different side of this man. Perhaps he could also say he got to know a different side of me. His immediate response was, “It was not a vaccine reaction. They just got the flu and the vaccine didn’t have time to work.” The problem was that none of the three even had flu-like symptoms. Why did he automatically jump to that conclusion? It is true that even less than once in a blue moon, influenza infection all by itself can lead to interstitial nephritis and kidney shut down. I’d never treated a case of flu-related kidney failure in all my years of practice as a very busy nephrologist in large tertiary care centers.”

“Around this time, I admitted a patient of mine for a kidney biopsy. I came to write the admitting order 45 minutes after she arrived, and saw that she had been given a flu shot before I got there, with an order that had my name on it. I hadn’t ordered it, so I asked the nurse how this could be. Astonishingly she said that it was now policy for the pharmacist to put a doctor’s signature on the order if the patient gave consent. They were very efficient that day.

Usually it could take forever to get an IV infusion set up, yet suddenly vaccines were given immediately on arrival. While the first problem for me was that I didn’t order the vaccine, the second was that the policy extended to ALL admissions, even if they had sepsis or worsening cancer, or were having a heart attack or stroke. A third problem was that there was no realization that a vaccine, or two, might make it more difficult for a clinician to subsequently work out what the problems were caused by, and correctly diagnose and treat the patient. Plainly, there was no consideration as to the utility, benefit, or detriment of a flu shot, to any seriously, acutely ill patient.”

Note: a key reason why hospitals push vaccines is because Obamacare, in a mission to “improve” medicine changed their financial reimbursements to reward “quality health care” and made a key component of that metric that a hospital ensured vaccinating a high percentage of their staff and patients.

“As time went on, inpatient consults became quite revealing because we could track the kidney function from normal or slightly impaired, to failed after a vaccine was given on admission.”

“In the past when I was consulted on kidney failure cases and said, “Oh that was the statin/antibiotic/diuretic that did that!” instantly the drug would be stopped—no questions asked. Now, however, a new standard was applied to vaccines. It didn’t matter that the internist’s notes in the charts said, “No obvious etiology of kidney failure found after thorough evaluation.” It didn’t matter that I considered the vaccine a possible cause when all other potential culprits had been eliminated. It was never the vaccine. The collective mindset said with glazed-over eyes, “Vaccines? Not possible or likely.”

“When I was discussing the issue one day on a cardiology ward, a cardiologist who knew me well, approached me with wide eyes. He was horrified, thinking he was behind on the latest recommendation. He said “Wait! Are we not supposed to be giving flu shots? I have been brow-beating my patients into flu shots whenever possible!” I explained the situation I witnessed and he listened. He also had never considered a vaccine to be a potential danger in any way. Whether or not he has since changed his thinking, or his practice at all, I don’t know. What was telling to me, was that all he wanted to know was what he had missed. He was not interested in thinking it out on his own. He was far too busy for that. He just wanted to know if he missed anything of ‘importance’, so that he could be a good, correct doctor. Kind of like the student who only wants to know what will be on the exam, but not how to think about how that information might fit into the bigger picture.”

“Several months went by, and the medical executive committee met to discuss my concerns, without allowing me to be present at the meeting. I was informed in writing that the nursing staff were becoming confused by me discontinuing orders to vaccinate and that I should adhere to hospital policy. I thought this odd, given that nurses are not accustomed to giving the same treatment to every patient, and are fully capable of reading individualized orders.”

“The next time the medical chief of staff and I met in the corridor, an oncologist was present. At one point, I asked the chief, “Why doesn’t anyone else see the problem here? Why is it just me? How can you think all this is “okay? Why is it now considered normal to vaccinate very sick people on their first hospital day?” The oncologist gave an answer that surprised me. She said, “Medical religion!” and turned and walked away. That was a strange outburst from her because in the months that followed, I watched her continue marching down the aisle of medical religion—not only with her own health issues that she shared with me, but also with her cancer patients.”

I looked deeper into the poke, because I was forced to—but ONLY after I realized that what I thought I purchased with my medical education, was not complexity of thinking or even complete analysis of science, but rote training, and reactive responses.

A good doctor researches fact. My research turned up a mass of medical articles about kidney failure related to influenza and other vaccines, and reasons to suspect that vaccines could also be causing many of the other diseases commonly labeled as ‘idiopathic’. I was shocked at the potential scope of the damage I had previously brushed off because of lack of education. Like my col“eagues, I had considered many vaccine reactions to be coincidences. Auto-immune diseases and kidney diseases requiring harsh immune-suppressive drugs are not unheard of, after vaccines. Nowhere in medical school, internship, residency, or fellowship, had kidney failure after vaccines been discussed. Why not?”

Note: many of my awake colleagues joke that idiopathic denotes individuals being too idiotic to recognize the obvious cause of a disease.

“I wrote all the cases out and put together a comprehensive brief for the hospital administration, but to no avail.”

“As time went on, it was interesting seeing the divide in the hospital staff. Nurses would bail me up in quiet corners and tell me stories that completely backed up what I was seeing. They would guardedly support me, when their superiors were out of eye- or ear-shot. A deeper respect was building between those who could see what I saw, while an icy wind roared from those on high.”

“I kept presenting the administration with facts they could not respond to, in the hope that they would get a blinding revelation of the obvious. Finally, they recruited the Northeast Healthcare Quality Foundation, the “quality improvement organization” for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, to get me off their backs. Dr. Lawrence D. Ramunno sent a letter invoking the fallacy of authority, which adamantly informed me that hospital vaccination against influenza virus would become a global measure for all admissions in 2010, and that my evidence of harm was not significant because 10 professional organizations endorse vaccination.”

“Not satisfied with demanding that I practice automaton obedience to dictates from on high, they initiated a shadow observation, where everything I did and wrote in the hospital, from then on, was observed and scrutinized.

This unscientific and unprofessional harassment only served to reinforce my decision to leave no policy unquestioned, ever again.”

Suzanne Humphries in turn was inspired to write her book “Dissolving Illusions” because one of the most common counterarguments she received from her colleagues about flu shots causing kidney failure was that “vaccines saved us from smallpox and polio so there’s no possible way a vaccine could be bad.” This in turn inspired her to look into the data underlying that claim, at which point she realized most of it wasn’t publicly available, but when she unearthed records from the basements of medical libraries, she discovered that statement was a myth, after which point she published that evidence in her book. (What Happens When a Hospital Vaccine Injures You?)

The underlying claim, of course, has to do with the smallpox vaccine that was developed after World War I by those who desired to use the same methods of psychological manipulation that got the United States into that needless, unjust, and immoral war that broke out among the former Catholic nations of Christendom (whose outbreak was such heartache in the soul of Pope Saint Pius X that he died less than three weeks after it began on August 1, 1914).

Mrs. Randy Engel quoted from contemporary sources from the 1930s to the 1950s to demonstrate how the government of the United States of America engaged in sophisticated psychological warfare against its own people to get them to conform to what they, the high caste of self-anointed priests and priestesses, decreed was so:

The danger of government lies, and the implications of official deception of whole peoples and nations, could not be more relevant than it is today when our God given natural rights and our Constitutional freedoms are systematically being ground into the dust under the guise of protecting the “public health” from Covid-19. 

In his 1928 classic Propaganda, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward L. Bernays ^[1] explains approvingly of how governments, powerful corporations, and foundations are capable of manipulating and regimenting the public mind in all areas of life including war, politics, business, education, and medical science.

According to Professor Mark Crispin Miller,^[2] who wrote a new introduction to the Bernays masterpiece in 2004:

“Bernays (1891-1995) pioneered the scientific techniques of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which is called ‘engineering of consent.’ During World War I, he was an integral part – along with Walter Lippmann – of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda machine that advertised and sold the war to the American people as one that would ‘Make the World Safe for Democracy.’ The marketing strategies for all future wars would be based on the CPI model.”^[3]   

The Existence of an Invisible Government

Writing in the 1920s, Bernays, an Austrian-American Jew, “the father of public relations,” gleefully acknowledged the reality of “invisible governors,” who rule the world and bring organization out of chaos to society:^[4]

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. …

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. 

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership. Their ability to supply needed ideas, and by their key position in the social structure. …^[5]

Of course, the most important factor Bernays initially leaves out is MONEY. After all, today’s contenders for domination in the New World Order – like Bill Gates or George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg – would be just another Tom, Dick, or Harry without their billions.

Later, however, Bernays does admit that “the invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses.”^[6]

WWI Created New Propaganda Techniques 

Bernays claims that: 

It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach – visual, graphic, and auditory – to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group – persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social, and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror, and the tyranny of the enemy. IT WAS ONLY NATURAL, AFTER THE WAR ENDED, THAT INTELLIGENT PERSONS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO APPLY A SIMILAR TECHNIQUE TO THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE (emphasis added).^[7]

Interestingly, Bernays states that the new dictatorship is not limited to government matters but embraces dictators in all fields of life including that of fashion. For example, he notes that Paris fashion leaders set the mode of the short skirt [worn by bob-haired flappers] for which, twenty years ago, any woman would simply be arrested and thrown into jail by the New York City police, and the entire women’s clothing industry, capitalized at hundreds of millions of dollars, must be reorganized to conform to their dictum.^[8] (Mrs. Randy Engel, Covid-19 and the Art of Brainwashing – Part I | AKA Catholic. Mrs. Engel has also published Covid-19 and the Art of Brainwashing – Part II, Part III, and  Part IV. which contain a truly engrossing history of the propaganda involved in the marketing of polio vaccines from the 1930s to the 1950s. This is important reading for everyone, but especially those traditional clergy who are prone to accept uncritically what the government says and are as thick about the problems that have always been associated with vaccines, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine, as Donald John Trump himself.)

Be wary of all cultural trends that do not conform with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We are called to be countercultural witnesses in behalf of Christ the King and His true Church, men and women who recognize that His enemies control both the governments of the world and the offices within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River and the chancery offices associated with these spiritual robber barons around the world.

It is thus important to recognize propaganda for what it is and to take whatever measures we need to take to protect ourselves and our families from succumbing to the falsehoods and thus becoming unwitting accomplices in dying suddenly or living with disabling vaccine-related injuries.

It is in regard, therefore, a reader of this site provided me with a superb piece of scholarship, “Going Jab to Jab: A Defense for Rejecting the Covid-19 Injections,” written, it would appear, in 2022, by Father Stephen McKenna of Saint Gertrude the Great Church in West Chester, Ohio, about the “vaccine mandates,” including how funeral directors made the connection between the “vaccines”  and the rash of the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “sudden deaths”/ “died suddenly” that have occurred in the past nearly four years:

As I was about to begin this article, sitting amid a pile of books, articles and papal writings on Father Cekada’s desk, a parishioner, a funeral director, called with a question. She told me that she was returning from picking up a body – normal enough for a mortician – from some distance. She said, “Father, it is crazy what is going on these days. Normally, I would have had a local funeral home do the initial pickup of the body, given the distance…but all my colleagues told me that their facilities were at capacity and they couldn't help.” She went on to explain that most of the funeral homes were remarking the same type of problem, that is, the number of deaths has been abnormally high, as of late, and many under suspicious conditions and illnesses. She informed me that many in the funeral business have noticed this actuality and that a common factor in these abnormal deaths is that the deceased had received the so-called vaccination1 for Covid-19. Most funeral directors, she continued to explain, are so alarmed that they are refusing to get the injection themselves and warning loved ones against it. Even some, who have received it, now vocally regret doing so because of what they have seen. (Father Stephen McKenna, Going Jab to Jab: A Defense for Rejecting the Covid-19 Injections. Father McKenna's treatise, which I sent to Dr. Peter McCullough, who praised it as "excellent scholarship," provides factual documentation about the Wuhan Virus jabs and the moral necessity of Catholics rejecting them.)

Obviously, there is much, much more than anecdotal evidence now, and there was much, much more than anecdotal evidence in 2022. There were then and are now hard facts, clinical studies, and scholarly reports written by medical professionals such as Dr. Peter McCullough, that prove beyond all question that the “vaccines” were meant to do what they are doing as an instrument of social control and depopulation. Anyone who can deny this at this late date is deceiving himself and those he tries to convince of that which is not only contrary to fact but, quite possibly, fatal to those who persist in these deceptions.

No matter what governmental authority orders us to do so, Pope Pius XII taught us that human beings can never being coerced into received any kind of medical treatment to which their informed conscience objects:

10. In this connection, the basic considerations may be set out in the following form: “The medical treatment of the patient demands taking a certain step. This in itself proves its moral legality.” Or else: “A certain new method hitherto neglected or little used will give possible, probable or sure results. All ethical considerations as to the licitness of this method are obsolete and should be treated as pointless.”

11. How can anyone fail to see that in these statements truth and falsehood are intermingled? In a very large number of cases the “interests of the patient” do provide the moral justification of the doctor’s conduct. Here again, the question concerns the absolute value of this principle. Does it prove by itself, does it make it evident that what the doctor wants to do conforms to the moral law?

12. In the first place it must be assumed that, as a private person, the doctor can take no measure or try no course of action without the consent of the patient. The doctor has no other rights or power over the patient than those which the latter gives him, explicitly or implicitly and tacitly. On his side, the patient cannot confer rights he does not possess. In this discussion the decisive point is the moral licitness of the right a patient has to dispose of himself. Here is the moral limit to the doctor’s action taken with the consent of the patient.

13. As for the patient, he is not absolute master of himself, of his body or of his soul. He cannot, therefore, freely dispose of himself as he pleases. Even the reason for which he acts is of itself neither sufficient nor determining. The patient is bound to the immanent teleology laid down by nature. He has the right of use, limited by natural finality, of the faculties and powers of his human nature. Because he is a user and not a proprietor, he does not have unlimited power to destroy or mutilate his body and its functions. Nevertheless, by virtue of the principle of totality, by virtue of his right to use the services of his organism as a whole, the patient can allow individual parts to be destroyed or mutilated when and to the extent necessary for the good of his being as a whole. He may do so to ensure his being’s existence and to avoid or, naturally, to repair serious and lasting damage which cannot otherwise be avoided or repaired.

14. The patient, then, has no right to involve his physical or psychic integrity in medical experiments or research when they entail serious destruction, mutilation, wounds or perils. 15. Moreover, in exercising his right to dispose of himself, his faculties and his organs, the individual must observe the hierarchy of the orders of values-or within a single order of values, the hierarchy of particular rights -insofar as the rules of morality demand. Thus, for example, a man cannot perform on himself or allow doctors to perform acts of a physical or somatic nature which doubtless relieve heavy physical or psychic burdens or infirmities, but which bring about at the same time permanent abolition or considerable and durable diminution of his freedom, that is, of his human personality in its typical and characteristic function. Such an act degrades a man to the level of a being reacting only to acquired reflexes or to a living automation. The moral law does not allow such a reversal of values. Here it sets up its limits to the “medical interests of the patient.” (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits Of Medical Research And Treatment, Address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System, September 14, 1952.)

The “vaccine mandates” were all as immoral as the destructive physiological time bombs called the “Covid-19 vaccines,” which were designed to “fight” a biologically engineered weapon that was not fatal to most people who did not have preexisting conditions (comorbidities). Then again, as has been noted so many times before, this was all carefully planned, and the planners did so in plain sight at the Hotel Saint Pierre in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, October 18, 2019.

Plan though these monsters of the apocalypse will continue to do, however, there is a reckoning each of them will have to make to the true God of Divine Revelation Whose Omnipotence and Omniscience they mock by trying to arrogate unto themselves the knowledge and wisdom that belongs to Him alone while acting as the supreme masters of the universe to lord it over the masses.

For our part, of course, we must remember that we have nothing to fear from any physical disease and/or the plots of the high priests and priestesses of Modernity. The only thing we need to fear is to lose the favor of the Most Blessed Trinity by means of Mortal Sin and those to run the risk of dying in such a unenviable state and thus be denied the glory of the Beatific Vision for all eternity and to be tortured with hellfire and all the torments of the demon, who mock the souls of the damned for being so stupid as to succumb to their temptations.

During this Octave of the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, therefore, we must always lift our minds and hearts up to Heaven so that we will spend all eternity there after a well-spent life during our earthly pilgrimage here in this vale of tears.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection Tuesday within the Octave of the Ascension should inspire us to “go forward” as disciples of Christ the King, Our Divine Redeemer, and to eschew the temptations to worldliness and self-induglence:

O King of glory, Lord of hosts, who didst this day ascend in triumph above all the heavens! leave us not orphans, but send upon us the Spirit of truth, promised by the Father, alleluia.

The Lord of glory has ascended into heaven and, as the Apostle says, he has gone thither as our forerunner; (Hebrews 6:20) but how are we to follow him to this abode of holiness, we whose path is beset with sin—we who are ever needing pardon, rather than meriting anything like glory? This brings us to another consequence of the exhaustless mystery of the Ascension; let us give it our closest attention. Jesus has gone to heaven, not only that he may reign as King, but also that he may intercede for us as our High Priest and, in this quality, obtain for us both the pardon of our sins and the graces we need for following him to glory. He offered himself, on the Cross, as a victim of propitiation for our sins; his precious Blood was shed as our superabundant ransom: but the gates of heaven remained shut against us, until he threw it open by his own entrance into that Sanctuary, where he was to exercise his eternal office of Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. (Psalms 109:4) By his Ascension into heaven, his priesthood of Calvary was transformed into a priesthood of glory. He entered with the veil of his once passible and mortal Flesh, (Hebrews 6:19, 10:20) within the veil of his Father’s presence, and there is he our Priest forever.

How truly is he called Christ, that is, “the Anointed!” for, no sooner was his Divine Person united to the Human Nature than he received a twofold anointing: he was made both King and High Priest. We have already meditated upon his Kingship; let us now contemplate his Priesthood. He gave proofs of both during his life among us on earth; but it was only by his Ascension that their unclouded splendor was to be declared. Let us, then, follow our Emmanuel, and see him as our High Priest.

The Apostle thus describes the office of a High Priest. He is taken from among men, and is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for our sins: (Hebrews 5:1) he is appointed their ambassador and mediator with God. Jesus received this office and ministry, and he is fulfilling it in heaven. But, that we may the better appreciate the grand mystery, let us study the figures given of it in the Holy Scriptures, and developed by St. Paul in his sublime Epistle; they will give us a precise idea of the grandeur of our Jesus’ Pontifical character.

Let us go, in thought, to the Temple of Jerusalem. First of all, is the spacious uncovered court, with its porticos; in the center, there stands the Altar, whereon are slain the victims of the various sacrifices, and from the Altar there radiate a number of conduits, through which flows the blood. We next come to a more sacred portion of the edifice; it is beyond the Altar of holocausts, is covered in, and is resplendent with all the riches of the East. Let us respectfully enter, for the place is Holy, and it was God himself who gave to Moses the plan of the various fittings which adorn it with their mysterious and rich beauty:—the Altar of Incense, with its morning and evening cloud of fragrance; the seven-branched Candlestick, with its superb lilies and pomegranates; the Table of the Loaves of Proposition, representing the offering made by man to him who feeds him with the harvests of the earth. And yet, it is not here, though the walls are wainscoted with the bright gold of Ophir, that is centered the great majesty of Jehovah. At the extreme end of the Temple there is a Veil of precious texture, richly embroidered with figures of the Cherubim, and reaching to the ground: it is there, beyond this Veil, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has fixed the abode of his presence; it is there, also, that rests the Ark of the Covenant, over which two golden Cherubim spread their wings. It is called the “Holy of Holies,” and no one, under pain of death, may draw aside the Veil, or look or enter within the hallowed precinct, where the God of Hosts deigns to dwell.

So then, man is banished from the place wherein God dwells: he is unworthy to enter into so holy a presence. He was created that he might see God and be eternally happy with that vision; but because of sin, he is never to enjoy the sight of God. There is a Veil between himself and Him who is his Last End; neither can he ever remove that Veil. Such is the severe lesson given to us by the symbolism of the ancient Temple.

But there is a merciful promise, and it gives a gleam of hope. This Veil shall, one day, be raised up and man shall enter within: on one condition, however. Let us return to the figurative Temple, and we shall learn what this condition is. As we have already noticed, none were allowed to enter the Holy of Holies; there was but one exception, and that was in favor of the High Priest, who might, once a year, penetrate beyond the Veil. Yet even he had certain conditions to observe. If he entered without holding in his hands a vessel containing the blood of two victims, previously immolated by him for his own and the people’s sins, he was to be put to death; if, on the contrary, he faithfully complied with the divine ordinances, he would be protected by the blood he carried in his hands, and might make intercession for himself and all Israel.

How beautiful and impressive are these figures of the first Covenant! but how much more so their fulfillment in our Jesus’ Ascension! Even during the period of his voluntary humiliations, he made his power be felt in this sacred Dwelling of God’s Majesty. His last breath on the Cross rent the Veil of the Holy of Holies, hereby signifying to us that man was soon to recover the right he had lost by sin, the right of admission into God’s presence. We say soon; for Jesus had still to gain the victory over Death by his Resurrection; he had to spend forty days on earth, during which he, our High Priest, would organize the true Priesthood that was to be exercised in his Church to the end of time, in union with the Priesthood he himself was to fulfill in heaven.

The fortieth day came, and found all things prepared—the witnesses of the Resurrection had proclaimed the victory of their Master; the dogmas of faith had all been revealed; the Church had been formed; the Sacraments had been instituted: it was time for our High Priest to enter into the Holy of Holies, accompanied by the holy souls of Limbo. Let us follow him with the eye of our faith. As he approached, the Veil that had closed the entrance for four thousand years was lifted up. Jesus enters. Has he not offered the preparatory Sacrifice? — not the figurative Sacrifice of the Old Law, but the real one of his own Blood? And having reached the Throne of the Divine Majesty, there to intercede for us his people, he has but to show his Eternal Father the Wounds he received, and from which flowed the Blood that satisfied every claim of Divine Justice. He would retain these sacred stigmata of his Sacrifice, in order that he might ever present them, as our High Priest, to the Father, and so disarm his anger. My little children, says St. John in his first Epistle, I write these things to you, that ye may not sin; but if any man do sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just. (1 John 2:1) Thus, then, beyond the Veil, Jesus treats of our interests with his Father; he gives the merits of his Sacrifice their full efficacy; he is the eternal High Priest, whose advocacy is irresistible.

St. John, who was granted a sight of the interior of heaven, gives us a sublime description of this twofold character of our Divine Head—Victim and yet King, Sacrificed and yet Immortal. He shows us the Throne of Jehovah, round which are seated the Four-and-Twenty Ancients, the four symbolical living creatures, and then the seven Spirits burning like lamps before it. But the Prophet does not finish his description here. He bids us look at the right hand of Him who sits on the Throne. There we perceive a Lamb standing and as it were slain—slain and and yet standing, for he is radiant with glory and power. (Apocolypse 4:5) We should be at a loss to understand the vision, had we not our grand mystery of the Ascension to explain it; but now, all is clear. We recognize in the Lamb, portrayed by the Apostle, our Jesus, the Word Eternal, who, being consubstantial to the Father, is seated on the same Throne with him. Yet is he also the Lamb; for he has assumed to himself our flesh, in order that he might be sacrificed for us as a victim; and this character of Victim is to be forever upon him. Oh! see him there, in all his majesty as Son of God, standing in the attitude of infinite power, yet withal, he will not part with his resemblance of the Immolated. The sword of Sacrifice has left Five Wounds upon him, and he would keep them for eternity. Yes, it is identically the same meek Lamb of Calvary, and he is to be forever consummating in glory the immolation he perfected on the Cross.

Such are the stupendous realities seen by the Angels within the Veil; (Hebrews 6:19) and when our turn comes to pass that Veil, we also shall be enraptured with the sight. We are not to be left outside, as were the Jewish people when, once each year, their High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies. We have the teaching of the Apostle: The Forerunner, Jesus, our High Priest, has entered within the Veil for us. (Hebrews 6:20) For us! O what music there is in these two words: For us! He has led the way; we are to follow! Even at the commencement, he would not go alone; he would have the countless legion of the souls of Limbo to accompany him: and ever since then, the procession into heaven has been one of unbroken magnificence. The Apostle tells us that we, poor sinners as we are, are already saved by hope; (Romans 8:24) and what is our hope, but that we are one day to enter into the Holy of Holies? Then will we blend our glad voices with those of the Angels, the Four-and-Twenty Ancients, the myriads of the Blessed, in the eternal Hymn: To the Lamb that was slain, power, and divinity, and wisdom and strength, and glory, and benediction, for ever and ever! Amen. (Apocolypse 5:12, 13)

We offer our readers, today, the following Sequence, composed by the pious Notker, in the 9th century, for the Abbey of Saint Gall.

SEQUENCE

May Christ our Lord grant to all Christians, who love him, that this day may be to them a happy one!

Christ Jesus! Son of God! thou unitest in thyself the two natures of God and Man.

Thou, the Eternal God, didst visit our earth; thou, the new Man, didst ascend into heaven/

The Angels and the Clouds pay the homage of their service to thee, when thou returnedst to thy Father;

And need we wonder at it, when we remember how, when thou wast a Babe at thy Mother’s breast, a Star united with the Angels in serving thee?

Thou, O Lord, this day, gavest to the inhabitants of earth a new and sweet sentiment: — the hope of heaven,

By placing our nature, — which thou, O King of kings, hadst truly assumed, —above the highest stars.

O what joy filled the hearts of thine Apostles, whom thou permittedst to see thee mounting up to heaven!

How joyfully did not the nine choirs of Angels go forth to meet thee as thou enteredst heaven,

Carrying on thy shoulders the sheep, thy one fold, that had long been scattered by wolves!

O Jesus! Good Shepherd! vouchsafe to watch over this thy Flock! Amen.

These two eloquent Prayers from the Mozarabic Breviary may also be made part of our evening devotions.

PRAYER

O Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of the stars! who bowedst down the heads of the lofty clouds when thou humbly camest to live among men; and who, in that same body, wherein, for our sake, thou sufferedst insult from the wicked, didst ascend above the heaven of heavens and receive the praises of Angels: graciously hear our prayer, and mercifully grant, that, being freed from sin, we may follow thee in desire to the region whither thou hast ascended in thy glorified Humanity; that thus we may, one day, see thee in thy Majesty, our Creator and eternal Lord, whom we now await as our God and Judge. Amen.

PRAYER

O Lord Jesus Christ! who ascendedst above the heaven of heavens to the East, after triumphing over thine own setting in the West; complete the work of our redemption, by raising us to the courts above. Thou, our Head, hast preceded us in glory; oh! draw thither, after thee, the whole body of thy Church, thy members whom thou callest to share in thine honor. Leave not, we beseech thee, in the inglorious West of this world, those whom thou, the triumphant Conqueror, hast raised, by thine own Ascension, to the everlasting East.

May Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus help us to see through the schemes of men intent on promoting evil as we cling to her through her Mos Holy Rosary to fear nothing except to displease her Divine Son as we seek to make reparation for our own sins by offering up all the tribulations of these incredible times to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

As Our Lord Himself told Saint Mary Alacoque: “I will reign over all those oppose Me.”

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Appendix

From Supreme Delusions Enable Supreme Tyrants to Supremely Crush Dissent about Murthy v. Missouri

Anyhow. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s 6-3 majority opinion in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, which was as important a First Amendment case concerning the American concept of “free speech,” which has never been as “free” as most shallow Americanists were taught to believe, has ever been heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, was yet another supreme exercise in sophistry as Barrett found that the petitioners lacked the legal standing to claim that they had been harmed by the Biden administration’s monstrous Orwellian scheme to censor all dissenting views about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the harm caused by the vaccines.

The following excerpt is taken from Associate Justice Barrett’s majority opinion discussing the claims made by petitioner Jill Hines that she had been harmed by the Biden censorship scheme:

Jill Hines. Of all the plaintiffs, Hines makes the best showing of a connection between her social-media restrictions and communications between the relevant platform (Facebook) and specific defendants (CDC and the White House). That said, most of the lines she draws are tenuous, particularly given her burden of proof at the preliminary injunction stage—recall that she must show that her restrictions are likely traceable to the White House and the CDC.

A healthcare activist, Hines codirects “Health Freedom Louisiana,” a group that advocated against COVID–19 mask and vaccine mandates. In October 2020—before the start of communications with the White House and the bulk of communications with the CDC—Facebook began to reduce the reach of Hines’ and Health Freedom’s pages. Hines tries to connect Facebook’s subsequent actions against her to both the White House officials and the CDC. First, Facebook “deplatformed” (i.e., deleted) one of Health Freedom’s groups in July 2021. The last post in the group asked members to contact state legislators about health freedom legislation. Three months earlier, a White House official sent Facebook several “suggestions” that were “circulating around the building and informing thinking,” including that the platform should “end group recommendations for groups with a history of COVID–19 or vaccine misinformation.”.

A week later, Facebook replied that it had “already removed all health groups from our recommendation feature.”  It is hard to know what to make of this. Facebook reported that it had already acted, which tends to imply that Facebook made its decision independently of the White House. Moreover, Facebook and the White House communicated about removing groups from recommendation features, not deleting them altogether—further weakening the inference that Facebook was implementing White House policy rather than its own.6

Next, in April 2023, Facebook gave Hines a warning after she reposted content from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Two years earlier, White House officials had pushed Facebook to remove the accounts of the “disinformation dozen,” 12 people (including Kennedy) supposedly responsible for a mjority of COVID–19-related misinformation. Hines tries to link the warning she received to this earlier White House pressure. Again, though, the link is weak. There is no evidence that the White House asked Facebook to censor every user who reposts a member of the disinformation dozen, nor did Facebook change its policies to do so. Facebook’s 2023 warning to Hines bears only a tangential relationship to the White House’s 2021 directive to Facebook. Hines traces her remaining restrictions to the CDC. Beginning in October 2020, Facebook fact checked Hines’ posts about pregnant women taking the COVID–19 vaccine, along with posts including data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). And in March 2021, the CDC flagged several misinformation trends for Facebook, including claims related to pregnancy and VAERS data. Because Hines does not provide dates for the fact checks, we cannot know whether the CDC could be responsible. In May 2022, Facebook restricted Hines’ account for posting an article discussing increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers following vaccination. A little over a year earlier, the CDC warned Facebook against claims of “unsubstantiated links to new [vaccine] side effects,” including “‘irritab[ility],’” “‘auto-immune issues, infertility,’” and “‘neurological damage including lowered IQ.’” 54 Record 17,042– 17,043 (emphasis deleted). There is no evidence that the CDC ever listed myocarditis as an unsubstantiated side effect—but because it is an alleged side effect, it at least falls under the same umbrella as the CDC’s communication. Health Freedom’s February 2023 violation, by contrast, was for posting that vaccine manufacturers would not compensate those with vaccine-related injuries—a topic that bears little resemblance to the content that the CDC flagged. . . .

The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from “exercis[ing such] general legal oversight” of the other branches of Government. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 423–424. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  (23-411 Murthy v. Missouri (06/26/2024).)

This is all patent sophistry, and it is also rank intellectual dishonesty as it is irresponsible at this late date to state, as Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett did, that myocarditis is only an alleged side effect of the “vaccines” developed during former President Donald John Trump’s warped “Operation Warp Speed.” To accept the word of the discredited “public health community” about anything, including Barrett’s incredible claim that the Centers for Disease Control had no role to play in the discrediting of the Great Barrington statement, is as irresponsible as it is inexcusable.

Then again, Amy Coney Barrett has a proven track record of taking the word of “public health” officials about the “necessity” of the draconian measures undertaken in 2020 that led to lockdowns masking mandates, and social distancing mandates. These measures were used by the likes of Governors Gavin Michael Newsom (D-People’s Republic of California), Andrew Mark Cuomo (Socialist Republic of New York), Michelle Lujan Grisham (Democratic Republic of New Mexico), Gretchen Whitmer (Workers’ Socialist Plutocracy of Michigan), Philip Murphy (Aristocratic Cryptocracy of New Jersey), and JB Pritzker (Unparalleled Corruptocracy of Illinois) to shut down churches and other alleged “houses of worship.”

Although she did not author the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case of the Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, concerning whether hideous Pritzker had favored the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over its free speech clause by permitting religious services to be conducted in accordance with Pritzker’s executive orders while forbidding the Republican Party of Illinois to hold its annual state convention, Judge Amy Coney Barrett did concur with the decision written by the Seventh Circuit’s Chief Judge, Sara L. Ellis, which gave Pritzker carte blanche to do as he pleased. Here is an excerpt from Chief Judge Ellis’s decision with which Judge Barrett concurred:

The world is currently facing a major global pandemic – one of the most significant challenges our society has faced in a century. There is no cure, vaccine, or effective treatment for COVID-19. As of June 30, more than 126,739 Americans have died due to the virus, 3 including approximately 6,923 Illinois residents. 4

In Illinois, there are more than 143,185 confirmed cases. 5 Despite efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19, many states are experiencing a rise in new cases. Medical experts agree that to stop the spread of COVID-19, people should practice social distancing and wear face coverings when near other people outside their homes. Federal, state, and local governments have enacted measures to reduce the spread of this highly contagious and easily transferable virus while remaining sensitive to economic concerns and citizens’ desire to resume certain activities. In Illinois, following stay-at-home orders, the Governor developed a multi-stage plan to “safely and conscientiously resume activities that were paused as COVID-19 cases rose exponentially and threatened to overwhelm [the] healthcare system.” Doc. 10-1 at 5. On May 29, 2020, the Governor issued an Order related to this plan. The Order provides that “[a]ny gathering of more than ten people is prohibited unless exempted by this Executive Order.” Id. at 6. The Order exempts free exercise of religion, emergency functions, and governmental functions. Relevant here, with respect to free exercise of religion, the Order states that it:

[D]oes not limit the free exercise of religion. To protect the health and safety of faith leaders, staff, congregants and visitors, religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to consult and follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health. As set forth in the IDPH guidelines, the safest practices for religious organizations at this time are to provide services online, in a drive-in format, or outdoors (and consistent with social distancing requirements and guidance regarding wearing face coverings), and to limit indoor services to 10 people. Religious organizations are encouraged to take steps to ensure social distancing, the use of face coverings, and implementation of other public health measures. Id. at 9.

The Governor issued the most recent executive order, EO 2020-43, on June 26, 2020. That order increases the gathering limit to fifty people but retains the exemption for free exercise of religion. See Doc. 12 at 3, 6. Plaintiffs allege that by merely “encourag[ing]” religious organizations and houses of worship to consult the IDPH guidelines, the Order treats religious speech differently. Plaintiffs contend that the Illinois Republican Party and its local and regional affiliates typically gather in groups greater than ten people for formal business meetings, informal strategy meetings, and other events. (lllinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, June 16, 2020.)

This is what I wrote in September of 2020 when then President Donald John Trump had nomination Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has taken been assigned a seat in a very warm locale since her death, for twenty-seven dreadfully long years:

There are several aspects to this decision that reveal Judge Barrett’s susceptibility to legal groupthink.

Judge Ellis’s opinion, with which Judge Amy Coney Barrett concurred, was  premised upon the uncritical acceptance of the facts provided by the Centers for Disease Control that have been debunked by many sources, each of which has discussed the phenomena of inflating the numbers by labeling almost every death in this country as caused by “Covid-19,” killing people, whether by incompetence or malicious  intent, by the use of ventilators when there is no need to use them, the indiscriminate placement of non-coronavirus patients with those who are infected with the virus in hospital wards and nursing homes and the deliberate use of “comfort care” that has only one end: the killing of innocent human beings. To accept uncritically the gratuitous claims of healthcare officials who have been making things up as they go along is jurisprudentially irresponsible.

Moreover, Judge Sara L. Ellis used the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905, as a precedent for the civil state to impose mandatory vaccinations when a vaccine for the China/Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus is development with the cells of aborted babies and that contains all manner of poisons that already causing adverse reactions among the volunteers who have receive the vaccinations in various trials (see AstraZeneca Vaccine Trials Suspended after Serious Adverse Reactions and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's. Intertwined History of Myelits and Vaccines):

“Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’” S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (S. Bay II), 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (quoting Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 38). When state officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427 (1974)). Over a century ago in Jacobson, the Supreme Court developed a framework by which to evaluate a State’s exercise of its emergency authority during a public health crisis. There, the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a State’s compulsory vaccination law during the smallpox epidemic. See generally Jacobson, 197 U.S. 11. Jacobson explained that “[u]pon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” Id. at 27. The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not provide an absolute right to be “wholly freed from restraint” at all times, as “[t]here are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.” Id. at 26. Therefore, while “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis,” the government may “reasonably restrict[ ]” rights during such times. See In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 784 (5th Cir. 2020). Judicial review of such claims is only available in limited circumstances. See S. Bay II, 140 S. Ct. at 1613–14 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (where state officials do not exceed their broad latitude during a pandemic “they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people” (citation omitted)); Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31. If a State implements emergency measures during an epidemic that curtails individual rights, courts uphold such measures unless they have no “real or substantial” relation to public health or are “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of fundamental rights secured by fundamental law.”

There is no doubt that Illinois is in the midst of a serious public health crisis, as contemplated in Jacobson. See Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker (Elim II), No. 20- 1811, 2020 WL 3249062 (7th Cir. June 16, 2020) (citing Jacobson and explaining that courts do not evaluate orders issued in response to public-health emergencies by the usual standard); Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (COVID19 qualifies as a public health crisis under Jacobson). Plaintiffs agree that Illinois has a compelling interest in fighting the pandemic. However, they suggest Jacobson is inapplicable because they do not assert an inherent right to gather but instead request equal treatment when others are permitted to gather. Jacobson draws no such distinction and instead provides for minimal judicial interference with state officials’ reasonable determinations. The Order undoubtedly relates to public health and safety because it minimizes the risk of virus transmission by limiting gathering size. Additionally, the Order still encourages religious organizations to limit indoor services to fifty people and implement other public health measures. Plaintiffs have not shown how this exemption is a plain invasion of their constitutional rights. The Order involves reasonable measures intended to protect public health while preserving avenues for First Amendment activities. Overall, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have a less than negligible chance of prevailing on their constitutional claims because the current crisis implicates Jacobson and the Order advances the Governor’s interest in protecting the health and safety of Illinois residents. (lllinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, June 16, 2020. For a review of the insidious and unconstitutional nature of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, please see Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda.)

By accepting the gratuitous claims made by the statists in the public health community, judges such as Sara L. Ellis and Amy Coney Barrett are simply made of the same cloth as Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., and other current statists on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as they have shown no willingness to even to look at any evidence that refutes those gratuitous claims and thus the need for making Americans prisoners in their own homes as the public health clowns keep changing their mind repeatedly.

Mind you, I do not care one whit about the Illinois Republican Party and consider its equating of political speech with the American concept of the “free exercise of religion” to be thoroughly Judeo-Masonic. However, the Pritzker case shows Amy Coney Barrett to be ready to accept draconian lockdown orders based solely on the word of those who are accustomed to instilling fear in the public and who have long desired to implement a police state in fact if not in name.

Judge Barrett’s concurrence with Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Ellis stands in sharp contrast to clear-sighted jurisprudence of United States District Court Judge William Strickman, who sits on the United States District Court for Western Pennsyvlania, which sits in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the case of County of Butler v. Wolf, September 16, 2020:

Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighed against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments….

The Court has reviewed {Lindsay F. Wiley & Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: the Case Against "Suspending" Judicial Review, 133 Harv. L. Rev. F. 179 (2020)} … and finds it both instructive and persuasive. There, the learned professors argue that Jacobson should not be interpreted as permitting the "suspension" of traditional levels of constitutional scrutiny in reviewing challenges to COVID- 19 mitigation measures…. The Court shares [these concerns] …. The Court will apply "regular" constitutional scrutiny to the issues in this case. Two considerations inform this decision—the ongoing and open-ended nature of the restrictions and the need for an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power….

The Court closes this Opinion as it began, by recognizing that Defendants' actions at issue here were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency. But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.

There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a "new normal" where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. (County of Butler v. Wolf, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, September 14, 2020.)

I do not know about you. However, I believe that Judge William D. Strickman IV’s jurisprudence in this instance is much better than that of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

It is even a little worse than this as Judge Barrett concurred with the opinion in Price v. City of Chicago, February 13, 2019, which upheld a very restrictive “buffer zone” to “protect” around abortuaries to “protect” women intent on killing their preborn babies from having to listen to sidewalk counselors and/or to receive literature from them about the evils of abortion. The decision centered around interpreting what then Chief Judge Sykes and Judge Barrett said was the controlling Supreme Court case, Hill v. Colorado, June 28, 2000, concerning buffer zones and sidewalk counselors that they were bound to apply in Price v. City of Chicago.

Although the legal arguments contained below may appear very arcane to readers unfamiliar with legal citation and what are considered to be binding precedents, even a simple glance at what follows will demonstrate yet another exercise in the sort of sophistry that governs American legal jurisprudence, so-called, in the Twenty-first Century:

In short, McCullen and Reed have deeply shaken Hill’s foundation.  Yet the case remains on the books and directly controls here. The plaintiffs urge us to follow the Third Circuit’s  lead  in  Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, which reversed the dismissal of a challenge  to  Pittsburgh’s fixed  15-foot clinic buffer zone and  remanded  for  a  case-specific narrow-tailoring analysis  in  light  of  McCullen.  824 F.3d 353, 372–73(3d  Cir.  2016).  The court held that dismissal at the pleading stage was improper based on McCullen’s “important clarification of the rigorous and fact-intensive nature of intermediate scrutiny’s narrow-tailoring analysis.” Id.  at 372. This was so, the court held, notwithstanding circuit precedent that upheld Pittsburgh’s 15-foot buffer zone just a few years earlier.Id.at 367–73 (distinguishing Brown   v.   City   of   Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2009)). We do not regard Bruni’s approach as a viable option here.  As we’ve noted, Chicago’s bubble-zone ordinance is a carbon copy of the Colorado law upheld in Hill except for the smaller   radius   within   which   it   applies.   And Hill’s narrow-tailoring analysis was highly generalized; it did not rest on the specific facts of the case or an evaluation of Colorado’s evidentiary showing. Accordingly, a remand for a case-specific narrow-tailoring analysis would effectively deny Hill’s controlling force. It would also create a circuit split. In Brown, the  predecessor case to Bruni, the Third Circuit upheld a separate provision in Pittsburgh’s  abortion-clinic law establishing an 8-foot no-approach bubble zone within a 100-foot  radius of clinic entrances—“a  virtually verbatim copy of the Hill statute”—without requiring a factual showing from the City.586 F.3d at 273. Bruni left that part of Brown untouched.

Hill directly controls, notwithstanding its inconsistency with McCullen and Reed. Only the Supreme Court can bring harmony to these precedents. The district judge correctly dismissed the facial First Amendment challenge.

D. Due-Process Vagueness Claim

In a cursory final argument, the plaintiffs maintain that Chicago’s   bubble-zone ordinance    is unconstitutionally vague. This argument too is foreclosed by Hill, which rejected a vagueness challenge to Colorado’s bubble-zone law. 530 U.S.  at 732–33. The plaintiffs rely on Justice Kennedy’s dissenting position: “In the context of a law imposing criminal penalties for pure speech, ‘protest’ is an imprecise word; ‘counseling’ is an imprecise word; ‘education’ is an imprecise word.” Id.   at 73 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).   Perhaps he was right, but his view did not carry the day. The judge properly dismissed the due-process vagueness claim.

III. Conclusion

The road the plaintiffs urge is not open to us in our hierarchical system.  Chicago’s bubble-zone ordinance is materially identical to—indeed, is narrower than—the law upheld in Hill. While the Supreme Court has deeply unsettled Hill, it has not overruled the decision. So it remains binding on us. The plaintiffs must seek relief in the High Court. AFFIRMED. Price v. City of Chicago, February 13, 2019.)

Arguments such as these will show to even a casual reader that we have reach a point of utter madness when judges on Federal courts spend lots of verbiage to “protect” expectant mothers from any effort to change their minds about killing their babies.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett could have dissented from the Seventh Circuit’s findings and have written her reasons for doing so. However, she concurred, which might have been because she actually agreed with the tendentious line of casuistry that has nothing to do with the simple fact that abortuaries have no right to exist and wanted the Supreme Court to review the findings in Hill v. Colorado. However, Judge Barrett might have been “playing it safe” with a view to a possible future nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which has indeed materialized. However, if this was the case in Price v. City of Chicago—and I do not know that it was the case, then I, for one, believe that it does not bode well for her decision-making process on the Supreme Court as one who trims his sails to secure his “establishment” credentials before being elevated to the high court may never find the courage to do anything other than equivocate once thereon. To speak the truth on the Supreme Court, it is a pretty nifty thing to have spoken it unequivocally before getting there as it is far easier to equivocate again and again after having learned to so in the past.

Obviously, this is a subjective judgment on my part. Granted.

However, the fact that Judge Amy Coney Barrett so readily accepted Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker’s draconian lockdown order as well as the underlying claims made by public health officials about the “necessity” of such lockdowns when a district court judge several hundred miles away came to a different conclusion in a similar case indicates a lack of intellectual curiosity on Mrs. Barrett’s part to question statist claims uncritically. Given all we know now about the way in which statists have tried to find one pretext after another for curbing legitimate liberties, including by the use of so-called “buffer zones” around baby-killing mills, Judge Barrett’s deference to our statist minders is troubling, to say the very least. (From Steeped in the Errors of Americanism and Conciliarism Through No Fault of Her Own.)

The fact Amy Coney Barrett has become a reliable institutionalist ally of John Glover Roberts, Jr., should come as no surprise to anyone who followed the lawsuits filed during the height of the plandemic in 2020 and 2021, admitting that her stubborn belief in the government narrative is tragic both for her and for the citizens of the United States of America.