During the election, anti-Trumpers from all sides were warning that Trump would be a loose cannon, starting wars willy-nilly, and in all probability launch a nuke. Instead, almost the exact opposite has occurred. Trump has met with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un three times, even becoming the first sitting President to walk within the Hermit Kingdom’s borders. He’s demanded an end to the twin military quagmires of Syria and Afghanistan, and came very close to hosting the Taliban at the White House. The same people pearl-clutching over Trump’s alleged war fever are now denouncing him for the attempt to meet with people rather than bomb them. Bombing them has not worked, clearly, and so talking with them would naturally be the only other option. Yet peace, when pursued by Trump, is unacceptable to his political enemies, regardless of how much carnage and death would result from their satisfied collective ego.

There is much about Trump to criticize, but his detractors appear to oppose his every action out of spite, even if he does something that aligns with their political or moral beliefs. Trump is against war? Then they are for it. Trump throws out chickenhawk warmonger John Bolton? Then they screech into the blue about the injustice of it all. The insincerity has entered the surreal, and revealed that vanishingly few with a platform hold any hard and fast principles.

Vaccine Impact has the details.

In response to any criticism of current vaccine policy, the polio vaccine inevitably gets dragged into the debate by the pro-vax side. What they don’t understand, because they’ve never bothered to find out, is that the polio vaccine, from the 50’s to the present, has a history that does not help their argument for vaccine safety. One historical tidbit left out of the discussion is that the polio virus used in the vaccines was cultivated on monkey kidneys, a process thought to be harmless at the time. It turned out not to be harmless, because the monkeys were infected with simian virus 40, and passed it on to 90 million Americans via Jonas Salk’s vaccine. SV40 is a prime suspect as the cause of mesothelioma, a fast-moving, lethal cancer that suddenly appeared sometime after 1950, one that kills around 3,000 Americans each year.

Another historical episode that never seems to make it into any discussion is the Cutter Incident, which refers to the mass vaccination campaign of 200,000 children in 1955. The problem was that the polio virus had been improperly inactivated, resulting in vaccine-induced polio in over 40,000 children, including many deaths.

Something else that is interesting: the monkeys used to culture the polio in mass quantities necessary for vaccine production were infected with simian immunodeficiency virus, similar to the human immunodeficiency virus, of which there is no documented case in a human before 1959. Vaccine scientist Hilary Koprowski conducted polio vaccine experiments in Africa between 1957 and 1960, administering his experimental vaccine to over 300,000 equatorial Africans. His vaccine was never approved. The first known case of HIV was eventually traced to a patient that visited a clinic that administered Koprowski’s experimental vaccine in 1959.

From the SF Chronicle

The observation that voters who are closely wedded to a single political party will usually blindly follow that party on any issue, regardless of what it concerns, is fairly common. This instinctual herd behavior has probably contributed to our survival as a species in a fundamental way, but it’s nevertheless disheartening to see it in action in regard to politics. For example: the Iraq War of 2003 was universally seen as a Republican war, because it was a Republican White House that launched it and expanded upon it. Republican voters virulently defended the actions of their President, no matter how often destructive to liberty or peace. It was mindless support.

Now, if the Iraq War had been launched by a Democratic President, it would be the mass of that party’s voters who would have been unconditionally defending every overseas atrocity. They would have defended the Patriot Act, rather than oppose it, it a Democratic President had signed it. Because we humans are hardwired for a religion of some type, we fill that need with whatever doctrine is most emotionally satisfying, one that everyone takes part in.

I say this due to the fact that the Democratic Party of various states appears to be the sole driver of vaccine mandates. California is in the news for its recent legislation that severely weakens the ability of a medical doctor to write a vaccine exemption for a child that the doctor deems to be at risk for injury. But Democrats have traditionally been the party that questioned the power of corporations, and sought to weaken those corporations’ hold upon government and the public. But we see Democrats voting unanimously to force a pharmaceutical product on citizens who would rather abstain. They are granting a corporation vast power and wealth, while it is the Republican Party, traditionally seen as the pro-business party, is the one attempting to stave off this massive attack on the ability to choose what is injected into our bodies.

The Democratic Party has been the defender of “my body my choice”, which is a wonderful slogan. Just imagine where that simple motto would take you if extended to every area of life! That affirmation of bodily sovereignty should be extended to an inject-able pharmaceutical product, but because the pro-vaccine hysteria has short-circuited the critical-thinking capacity of so many, it is ignored, or downplayed. The “greater good” argument has been used by corporate-captured legislatures to thrust upon the public vaccine mandates, while remaining willfully blind to the dangers of those vaccines.

Which brings me to my final point: people are stubbornly immune to facts that contradict the tenets of their political herd. Beliefs that they’ve tethered their emotions to, even false beliefs, will be clung to, and no amount of evidence will change their minds. Which is fine for the most part. We all have unfounded beliefs that might not stand up to scrutiny. My problem is with the blindly-held beliefs in the political realm that affect everyone via legislation. They believe that their beliefs should be forced upon others, that their ideas about the appropriate direction for all of society should be mandated. That’s our primal nature, though, to feel a desire to force our beliefs on others. But it’s also in our nature to thrive in an environment of liberty, where force is removed from our interactions with others. It is the sole duty of government to ensure the elimination of force. Any action beyond that makes the government an instrument of someone else’s desire.

What could go wrong?

MATT TAIBBI: The Pentagon wants to use DARPA to police internet news

Salient points:

“The most enormous issue posed by the modern media landscape is the industry’s incredible concentration, which allows a handful of private platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Google – to dominate media distribution.

This makes it possible to envisage direct levers of control over the public’s media habits that never existed back when people got much of their news from local paper chains with individual distribution networks. We’ve already seen scary examples of misidentified foreign subversion, from the Washington Post’s repeat editorials denouncing Bernie Sanders as a useful idiot for the Kremlin to the zapping of hundreds of domestic political sites as “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

What if the same people who can’t tell the difference between Truthdig and Pravda get to help design the new fake news algorithms? That’s a much bigger worry than the next Paul Horner or even, frankly, the next Russian Facebook campaign. While Donald Trump is in the White House, progressives won’t grasp how scary all of this is, but bet on it: In a few years, we’ll all wish we paid more attention when the Pentagon announced it wanted in on the news regulation business.”

If that’s not a red flag. From The Sun: Police team up with Amazon Ring to hand out free camera doorbells to thousands of households across Britain

For decades, the Left, traditionally the anti-free market side, opposed the Drug War, exposed its ill effects on the most vulnerable classes of people, and all the tragedy that ensued. The Right, despite their declared support for free markets, have almost universally supported the Drug War, as well as the law-and-order approach to offenders and the militarization of police. How both sides were able to hold such a contradiction in their collective minds for so long is beyond me.

The Left, in calling for the legalization for cannabis, implicitly understood the humanitarianism of the libertarian vision of removing controls on voluntary behavior, and the idiocy of declaring something illegal when there exists no victim.  It would only take a small nudge to apply that libertarian humanitarianism to every other area of life currently blighted by government interference.

Most of the mainstream Right only recently admitted to the utter lunacy of cannabis prohibition, and how it contradicts their supposed support of freedom. The ‘libertarian Right’ if there is such a thing, has supported legalization, but they have historically been drowned out by the Republican demagogues of Prohibition.

Only the libertarians remain as the ones who have not only supported legalization, but understood the principle behind it.

But marijuana legalization belongs to neither the Left nor the Right. Marijuana legalization has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what libertarians have been saying for years: that liberty is humane, and good, and our only option.

It’s prohibition of voluntary behavior of any stripe that is immoral, because it violates the dignity of both parties to a transaction, forces transactions underground where neither side have recourse to courts of law. Prohibition augments and consolidates power, siphoning it away from the people and into the hands of the government. Prohibition becomes a black hole for taxpayer billions and an unending source of power for its architects.

The Drug War became a jobs program for hundreds of thousands of government employees. It also became a playground for all the totalitarian surveillance tech that was designed and manufactured by the domestic arm of the Military/Industrial Complex, and then handed over to the cops, who took it gleefully and immediately deployed it against U.S. citizens. It is now coming to an end, in grand fashion.

The definitive herald of the end of the Drug War is the appearance of the colorful, creative cannabis billboards that have popped up around Oklahoma City. They are beautiful to behold, who would’ve predicted their presence a decade ago? They signify a dramatic increase in liberty, well-being, and prosperity.

Liberty is humanitarian, and nothing is more exemplary of that fact than legalized cannabis.

I’ve made a similar post in the past, but it bears repeating: the vaccine court is compensating cases of “vaccine-induced brain injury”, but only if those cases aren’t labeled as “autism” even though the brain injury results in autism. Bizarre logic that could only be dreamt up by a government lawyer it seems. Here is the paper, published in 2011 in the Pace Environmental Law Review, that looked into it:

Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury

Amazing piece appearing at the New York Post: Robert Mueller helped Saudi Arabia cover up its role in 9/11 attacks: suit

From getting Saudi officials out of the country in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, to shutting down investigations into Saudi connections with the hijackers, Mueller was allegedly instrumental in turning attention away from Saudi Arabia and aiming it at Iraq, where he lied to Congress about the threat Saddam posed to the US. What a piece of garbage.