VACCINATION, FREEDOM, AND FRAUD

 

I remember when I was a kid, seeing TV news reports showing rows upon rows of iron lungs filled with children.

The disease was deadly, and if it didn’t kill you, it could cripple you. It was scary. Then this guy named Jonas Salk invented a vaccine, and everyone lined up in school to get the vaccine. I was frightened by the stories my classmates told me about how bad the vaccine was. When I got the shot, it hurt, and a sore popped up on the injection site. My vaccination scar has finally faded after all these years. Later they came up with an oral vaccine, and we all lined up again to drink it.

But, remarkably, polio was all-but eradicated.

As a child I suffered through all the childhood diseases: mumps (twice), measles, and chickenpox. Luckily, I didn’t realize at the time how deadly those diseases were.

Then vaccines all-but- eliminated those diseases. God was in his heaven and all was right with the world until…

In 1998 a “researcher” named Wakefield wrote a bogus paper falsely claiming a connection between vaccines and autism. Worldwide news agencies screamed the dangers of vaccination. News that Wakefield and his colleagues had purposely falsified their results got scant attention.

So here we are today, Hell-bent on returning to those dark days of the 1950’s when children died of diseases we can now prevent. And all because a lie can go around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

As an excuse for ending mandatory vaccinations, our Surgeon General, Joseph Lapado says mandatory vaccination is a form of slavery. We've got rights, don't we? We can make our own decisions without being dictated to by the government, can't we? My right to swing my arm ends at your nose. Some inconvenience is necessary in this crowded world to keep people healthy. And we will not stay healthy without mandatory vaccinations. 

Here's a link to the web article that talks about  the bogus vaccine study and the harm it did:

The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud - PMC

INVICTUS REVISITED

WILLIAM ERNEST HENSLEY

When I was in high school, I came across the poem Invictus by William Ernest Hensley. I didn’t pay much attention to the entire poem, but I did like the final quatrain. It resonated with my outlook on life at that time, and I memorized it:

 

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“I am the master of my fate:

“I am the captain of my soul.”

 

Years later, after I had graduated law school, had spent a few years practicing law and had experienced more of the “punishments of the scroll,” I revisited the poem. This was back in 1984, and I was part of a trial team prosecuting a Chicago-based drug smuggling ring. We were trying the case on a change of venue to Tallahassee. The trial was long, and I spent many lonely nights in a motel room reading and writing poetry. The poetry I read was very good. The poetry I wrote, not so much.

 

It turned out, upon rereading Invictus, I realized that the poem was written from an atheistic point of view. Read the original poem and see if you agree with me.

 

“Out of the night that covers me,
“Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
“I thank whatever gods may be
“For my unconquerable soul.


“In the fell clutch of circumstance
“I have not winced nor cried aloud.
“Under the bludgeonings of chance
“My head is bloody, but unbowed.


“Beyond this place of wrath and tears
“Looms but the Horror of the shade,
“And yet the menace of the years
“Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“I am the master of my fate:

“I am the captain of my soul.” 

 

Now I have many bad qualities, but being an atheist isn’t one of them. I still liked the last quatrain, but the rest of the poem gave me a sour taste in my mouth. So one night, as I battled insomnia in my motel room, I revised the poem, in much the same fashion as

Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias was modified by  Morris Gilbert Bishop in his poem Ozymandias Revisited.

 

My modification, which I titled Invictus Revisited, went like this:

 

“Out of the night that covers me,

“Black as the Pit from pole to pole,  

“I thank the Lord of Calvary    

“For my unconquerable soul.  

 

“In the fell clutch of circumstance

“I have not winced nor cried aloud.  

“Under the bludgeonings of chance  

“My head is bloody, but unbowed.  

 

“Beyond this place of wrath and tears  

“Looms not the Horror of the shade,

“And the false menace of the years  

“Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.”  

 

“It matters not how strait the gate,  

“How charged with punishments the scroll,  

“God is the master of my fate:

“He is the captain of my soul.” 

THE PRESIDENT'S TROJAN AIRPLANE

 

Article I § 9 of the US Constitution Provides: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” It is commonly called The Foreign Emoluments Clause.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts federal officials from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Titles of Nobility Clause, it was designed to shield the U.S. federal officeholders against so-called "corrupting foreign influences". The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.

The prohibition against officers receiving a present or emolument is essentially an antibribery rule to prevent influence by a foreign power. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, identified the Clause as a key "provision against the danger ... of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers."

The history of public officers receiving gifts from foreign countries is as follows: Benjamin Franklin was given a golden snuffbox by the King of France and got permission to keep it from the Continental Congress. George Washington received a painting of the Bastille and a key to it from the Marquis de Lafayette and a painting of Louis XIV and apparently didn’t get permission to keep the gifts. After Washington, presidents have traditionally sought permission from Congress to keep gifts. Absent permission, the President will deposit the object with the Department of State. For example, Andrew Jackson sought permission from Congress to keep a gold medal presented by Simón Bolívar; Congress refused to grant consent, and so Jackson deposited the medal with the Department of State. Martin Van Buren and John Tyler received gifts from the Imam of Muscat, for which they received congressional authorization either to transfer them to the United States Government or to auction them with proceeds vesting to the United States Treasury. None of these gifts had tremendous monetary value.

Trump accused Biden of making money off his presidency by having gifts funneled to his son Hunter Jr. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. Whether he did or didn’t, that’s history. What Trump is doing now is current events.

From the outset, authorities have argued that Trump’s businesses are profiting off of his foreign investments because of his presidency, and that violates the Emoluments Clause. Others have argued that since George Washington kept two paintings and a key, Trump is doing nothing wrong.

Now Trump wants to take a $400,000,000 airplane from Qatar to use as Air Force One. The current Air Force One is getting old, and they’re working on a new one, but it won’t be ready for two years. Trump wants to use the luxury airplane as Air Force One and keep it after he leaves office by putting it in the property of his Presidential Library. This would dwarf all other foreign emoluments previously approved by Congress. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Trump is getting rich(er) off of a questionable gift from a foreign country.

What would be the mechanics of taking such a Trojan Horse, I mean gift? First, the plane would have to be taken apart to remove all clandestine electronic listening devices and spyware and then put back together. Next it would have to be fitted with all the special equipment necessary to the special mission of Air Force One. All this would be both expensive and time consuming, and it may well be that the fitting out would take years. It may not be ready until Boeing has finished building the new Air Force One. And under the terms of the gift, they’d have to build it anyway, because Trump is going to keep his palatial plane after he leaves office.

This stinks to high heaven. It may not be bribery, but it certainly looks like it. Congress should tell Trump, “No! You cannot have the airplane!” He’s not going to ask permission, but that doesn’t prevent Congress from forbidding the gift. 

REOPEN ALCATRAZ?

Reopen Alcatraz? It was closed down on March 21, 1963, by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr. He closed it because it was too expensive to operate, too expensive to maintain, and it needed massively expensive renovations. It cost 3 times as much to house a prisoner there than it did in other Federal Prisons. It has been closed for 62 years, and it has not gotten any better in that time. It could fairly be characterized as a ruin. In the 1970’s it became a national park, and it is visited by approximately 1,000,000 people per year. Why Did Alcatraz Close Down? | Gray Line of San Francisco. 

If it was expensive to operate 62 years ago, it certainly will be even more expensive to operate today. If it was too expensive to maintain 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to maintain today. If it was too expensive to renovate 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to renovate today. But it’s a supermax facility, isn’t it? It is ideal for the worst of the worst criminals, isn’t it? What was passed for a supermax prison 62 years ago doesn’t quite cut the mustard for supermaxes, or even maximum-security prisons, today. The Feds already have a supermax: USP Florence ADMAX in Colorado. It would be a darn sight cheaper to expand USP Florence ADMAX than it would to resuscitate Alcatraz. I have been in some rough maximum security Federal Prisons (as a visitor), and they exceed Alcatraz as the day exceeds the night. There is no need to reopen Alcatraz. It will be a huge money pit, the prisoners there will not be as securely encased as they will in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons, and the officers guarding them will not be as safe as in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons. 

The only reason I can think of for opening Alcatraz is so that the Administration can say, “See how tough we’re being on the worst of the worst criminals?” As a public relations ploy, it might be worthwhile to reopen Alcatraz. As a fiscally responsible act, it would border on lunacy. 

I thought of titling this post "Birdbrain of Alcatraz" as a tribute to both the Burt Lancaster movie "Birdman of Alcatraz" and the monumentally bad judgment it would take to seriously consider reopening the prison, but I'm trying to control my sarcastic streak.

DEFUND HEAD START?

Several years ago, our youngest granddaughter was enrolled in Head Start. Because both her parents worked, my wife and I would drive her to and from Suwannee Valley Four C’s, our local Head Start program. Our granddaughter was introduced to an excellent educational program, and she prospered. She developed an intense love of reading and learning, and I became known to her classmates as “Papa Bob.” Before long both my wife and I became involved in the administration of the program, and I am still an active member of the SV4C’s Board of Directors. Our granddaughter has long since graduated from Head Start and is now in grammar school, where she continues to excel academically. Head Start gave her a solid background on which to build. It does the same for many economically disadvantaged children. I knew Head Start was a good program before I became involved on the Board of Directors, but since I became a member I have gained a deeper appreciation for the good work done by the program. Since President Trump has taken office, the program has been cut back. Although no irreparable harm has yet been done to the program, his proposed budget for 2026 does not provide for the funding of Head Start. The stoppage of Federal Funding would be disastrous for the program nationwide. I ask that you write to your Federal Legislators urging that they include Head Start funding in the 2026 budget. If you feel that Head Start is a worthy program, you can use the following link to make your Senators and Congressmen/women aware of your concerns: https://nhsa.org/take-action/

ADDENDUM: Trump's big, beautiful budget has come out, and Head Start was not deleted. It will survive, at least until the next budget.