Wednesday, December 3, 2025

The End of Migration


While President Trump placed a moratorium on migration to the U.S. from third-world countries, Pope Leo was speaking against migration in Lebanon. These two leaders with very different backgrounds reached the same conclusion.

The Pope was addressing Lebanon, which has the largest Christian population in the Middle East amid a Muslim majority. He declared, “There are times when it is easier to flee, or simply more convenient to move elsewhere.”

He emphasized that “it takes real courage and foresight to stay or return to one’s own country, and to consider even somewhat difficult situations worthy of love and dedication.” He urged people not to leave their homeland, adding that “we must not forget that remaining in our homeland and working day by day to develop a civilization of love and peace remains something very valuable.”

Joe Biden should have adopted that approach for the 200,000 Afghans whom he disastrously brought into our country. One of them has been charged with shooting two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C., killing one young woman and critically wounding a young man.

The shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was reportedly living in an apartment without beds and repeatedly playing the violent video game “Call of Duty” before driving nearly 3,000 miles across our country to go on his rampage. This is not assimilation that is needed for an immigrant to become a productive member of American society.

Biden brought in more refugees than any other president since the end of the Cold War. In 2024 alone, Biden transported 105,500 refugees from multiple third-world countries into the United States, at a time when American college students are struggling to find jobs.

Biden’s lax immigration and refugee policy brings in future Democrat voters, which is the only way that the Democrat Party can survive demographically in the long term. Surveys show that liberal young women are much less likely to have children than conservative young women, and Republican states are growing faster than Democrat states are.

Bringing in hordes of refugees and other migrants has been done by Democrat presidents for political reasons, not because it makes sense for our country or for the migrants. It is impossible to screen so many people from primitive countries like Afghanistan, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that 29-year-old Lakanwal was radicalized after he resettled here.

Refugees are not even required to swear allegiance to the United States upon arrival here. It is only as a final stage in obtaining citizenship that Congress requires an oath of allegiance to our Constitution and laws.

Any foreigner unwilling to swear his full allegiance to the U.S. should not be allowed to remain here, but should be returned to his country of origin. This should be the first step, not merely the last, in every immigration program that is not discontinued.

Trump has properly ordered a “comprehensive review and a re-interview of all refugees admitted from January 20, 2021, to February 20, 2025,” which is when refugees entered our country under Biden’s policies. Trump referenced a Citizenship and Immigration Services finding that the Biden Administration “potentially prioritized expediency, quantity, and admissions over quality interviews and detailed screening and vetting.”

The Biden Administration’s policy allowed millions from all over the world to cross our southern border into our country, with no way to screen them. Many of these illegal aliens were from hostile nations, which Trump has already shut down by beefing up border security.

On November 12, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued its first “Special Message” in a dozen years to address the migration issue. Although reported by the liberal media as a rebuke of Trump, in fact, it included a strong statement against illegal migration.

“We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good. Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation.”

Less than a week later, Pope Leo declared, “No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has the right to determine who enters, how, and when.”

In September, the Southern Baptist Convention cut its ties with a migration coalition of evangelical groups, which has been criticized by Trump supporters for being too permissive toward migrants. White evangelical voters supportedTrump by a record 84% in 2024 as he campaigned hard against the open-border policies of Biden and Harris.

But Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), once considered the frontrunner to become Harris’s 2024 running mate, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Trump’s crackdown on migrants constitutes “the U.S. Government harassing” refugees. The real harassment has been Democrats bringing in migrants who should not be here.



Entertainment and podcast thread for Dec 3

 


Man it feels good to sleep in!

Vetting Aliens from Third World Countries


Under the despotic autopen administration (AKA bilious Biden) the U.S. had a policy called “Operation Allies Welcome.” It might as well have been called Operation Everyone Welcome. Estimates are that about 190,000 Afghan aliens were admitted since 2021, but the vetting was so ineffectually Bidenesque that nobody really knows what we don’t know.

Some of the aliens welcomed into our country included members of the Afghan Zero Units which worked with the CIA. The evil Afghan national who shot the two West Virginia National Guardsmen in D.C. (murdering one, as of time of writing) was in one of those units. The vetting process included these elements: biometric screening; biographic checks against interagency watch lists -- DoW, DHS, FBI -- and intelligence community checks; and in-person interviews for asylum seekers and special immigration visas.

While seemingly extensive, it wasn’t enough. That may be partly because those who hate our enemies don’t necessarily love us, and the screening procedures mentioned above are inadequate to ascertain their commitment to American ideals. Yet, President Trump only wants immigrants and refugees who share American values and are willing to assimilate into the Golden Age of America, not try to transform it. Others need not apply; in fact, the whole asylum program should probably be overhauled, if not scrapped.

Indeed, President Trump is righteously indignant; he intends to halt immigration from Third-World countries. He has also directed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to review every Green Card held by aliens from these 19 countries. There are about 3.3 million Green Card holdersfrom these “countries of concern.” Nevertheless, USCIS director Joseph Edlow recognizes the urgency of the matter, stating, in part, “my primary responsibility is to ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.”

USCIS will consider relevant “country-specific factors.” However, many of the countries the aliens escaped from are primitive; they don’t maintain reliable databases to cross-check responses, especially biographical data. Therefore, the “maximum degree” possible implies more thorough in-person interviews with “country-specific” questions. This will be laborious, which is one reason why we need to halt further applicants at least until we’ve accomplished a reset (or indefinitely).

Fortunately, Artificial Intelligence has come a long way, and in conjunction with lie-detector methods it will help ascertain a respondent’s veracity with all deliberate speed -- with emphasis on “deliberate.” Country-specific questions designed to evoke a physiological response that’s hard to conceal may go further than untrustworthy biographical data in determining the alien’s worthiness for, and amenability to, Americanization.

Afghanistan and Somalia are two of the countries of concern. Here are two sets of sample, value-judgement questions that may evoke measurable emotions that expose an alien’s allegiance to foreign potentates, rather than his adopted country:

                For Afghan aliens:

  • Should girls be educated beyond basic home economics chores?
  • What does being an American mean to you?
  • Whom do you admire more, Ahmad Shah Durrani, (founder of modern Afghanistan) or George Washington?
  • If your wife has a headache, is it improper to impose yourself upon her?
  • Does “might make right”?
  • Do you send money back to Afghanistan? To whom?
  • What should be the punishment for stealing a goat? (At interviewee’s discretion, aimed to elicit indignant attitude.)
  • Is it barbaric to play polo with a severed human head? (At interviewee’s discretion if subject is fidgety and reticent.)
  • What is your opinion of no-fault divorce?

                For Somali aliens:

  • Do you prefer to eat cats, dogs, or geese?
  • What is more important, due process or swift “eye-for-eye” retribution?
  • How do you define piracy?
  • What is your primary source of income? Do your remit any funds home?
  • Should women whose vote you disagree with be disenfranchised?
  • Are the sexes equal?
  • What volunteer efforts have you pursued in America?
  • What do you think of Al-Shabaab?
  • If a camel escapes from the zoo, would you return it (at interviewee’s discretion if the subject’s answers are not forthcoming. Aimed to provoke a response.)

Those questions are merely for illustrative purposes -- that is, to emphasize that the vetting process focusses on country-specific questions given their concerning status.

Additionally, reviewed aliens should demonstrate English language proficiency (our official language) and not have sucked-up public assistance funds like thirsty camels sucking up water in their homeland (Somalia). That would mean they are a “public charge” and thereby inadmissible per President Trump and USCIS.

President Trump is resolved that his America-First duty requires that USCIS re-examine every alien admitted to America under Biden. AI-enabled lie detectors can supplement human intervention, or perhaps replace it in evaluating written responses (they can be better at spotting lies). As for future immigrants from the aforementioned 19 countries: Americans come first, and our housing, employment, healthcare, and law enforcement resources are already strained to the limit. You’ll just have to transform your own society, for we are the United States, not the United Nations.



Pardon Me … and You, and Everybody


President Trump is using his pardon power, and boy, are the Democrats, regime media, and Fredocons mad. They were furious when he used it deliberately to protect the persecuted victims of the J6 pogroms, and now they're mad about his recent pardons as well as the anticipated pardons of the patriots they hoped to target once Trump leaves office. I confess I don't know the facts about the recent pardons of folks like the ex-president of Honduras or a couple of finance guys, but I am also convinced that the people mad about them don't know the facts, either. Trump thinks they were unjustly convicted, but according to the critics, we're supposed to assume the justice system worked. We're supposed to assume that the Biden administration was administering justice as opposed to vengeance on political or ideological opponents. Why the hell would we ever do that? I'm going to assume Donald Trump had good reasons for these pardons, and I know that makes the haters mad, which only makes it better.

You might not know it from the regime media, but Trump's an amateur in the pardon game. President Eggplant famously gave out over 8,000 pardons, including to a bunch of scumbag criminals, a bunch of scumbags in his administration, and his convicted scumbag, druggie son. Those didn't upset the Left. In fact, the Left was pretty excited about them. Some of them were protective pardons, designed to ensure that criminals in Grandpa Badfinger's administration didn't face justice. It was corrupt and scummy, but completely within his power. And please don't start with the auto-pen stuff. None of that matters. The pardons are valid, auto-pen or not. He doesn't even have to write them down. He could just wave his withered paw and make it so. And that's a good thing. We want a pardon power without limits, and that can never be questioned because that protects us.

The unspoken premise of the critique of the pardon power is that somehow the justice system is fair and honest. It's not. We have seen that over and over again, from the persecution of conservatives to leftist judges making absolutely bogus rulings to stop the elected president from enacting the policies he promised the voters who voted for him, to leftist criminals being treated with kid gloves. We are under no moral obligation to default to respecting the skin-suitinstitutions of the so-called "justice system." The pardon power is a rebuke to the fraud that is the idea that simply because you're convicted, it's fair and just. As our communist buddies might say, we are woke to the okey-doke – for us conservatives, we cannot rely on getting a fair trial or a fair shake, and the pardon power allows our chosen leaders to undo these injustices. This is why the haters hate it. It stops them from oppressing us.

Now, the Democrats are all over the place, promising to prosecute military officials, Trump officials, and even you, given the chance, if they ever return to power. This isn't an idle threat – this is part of the color revolution that they wish to conduct. They want to make it impossible for us to ever oppose them again by making examples of us and imprisoning our leaders. We saw that during the Biden administration, but they were not very good at it. The next time, they may have learned from their mistakes. This is why the pardon power is so vital, and why the Left is suddenly all against it. Rep. Ro Khanna recently posted on X that we need a constitutional amendment to change the pardon power. Others, including some spineless conservatives, have joined in.

No.

The pardon power is the most based of powers, an unreviewable and unquestionable plenary power of the president to undo the wrongs committed by a weaponized government leviathan without so much as a stroke of a pen – it just needs the president to make it so through the power of wanting. This is glorious. This is vital. Thanks to the power of pardons, we can elect someone to undo the untold damage that the fascist deep state would inflict upon us. The Left hates the idea of the pardon power because it stops them, and it stops them cold. No, they are not going to be able to prevent us from enforcing immigration laws by threatening to, and actually persecuting, ICE agents. They are not going to be able to stop the military from destroying drug runners coming into America with their poison by prosecuting soldiers and civilian officials. They're not going to be able to stop Donald Trump and any future conservative presidents' ability to exercise the powers of the office by promising to prosecute them and anyone connected with their administrations once the GOP leaves office. The pardon power takes their most powerful arrow out of their quiver. They want to stop the president from stopping them.

But the Democrats are going to be able to do it too, right? Oh yeah. As we've discussed, they already have. And we can live with that. Remember that there is a difference between how the parties use the power of government. We use it to prosecute them because they're actual criminals. They set out to prosecute us not because we're criminals, but because they want power. This is an important difference. Yes, some of their criminals will get away with it because of the pardon power. So what? What's important is that our non-criminals will be able to exercise power when we win elections. That's much more important than seeing that malignant dwarf Anthony Fauci in jail.

Remember, the weaponization of government is designed to disenfranchise us. It is designed to kill what they call "democracy," our ability to participate in our own governance. That's why the pardon power is so important and must remain absolutely unquestionable and unchallengeable. It's one of the few things that keeps us from becoming a leftist dictatorship.

And we're actually doing a favor to the Democrats by keeping the pardon power unchanged. Without it, the Democrats would weaponize government and would create a situation where half of America – the armed half – is unable to participate in our own government. They would rule us with total, unaccountable power, making power the currency of government instead of votes. And then we're looking at this country breaking apart with or without a civil war – pre-order my new conservative action novel, "Panama Red" (the newest in the People's Republic series) if you want to see how that turns out.

Spoiler: It turns out poorly for the pinkos, but at least there's a lot of action and laughs.

So, when Trump finally leaves office, look for a ton of pardons. Look for mass pardons of anybody in ICE, in the military, in the administration, or anywhere else where people have successfully resisted the Left. It's totally going to happen. That's why Pete Hegseth can mock their sputtering, rageaholic anger that he dared kill the narco-terrorists who have murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans with their poison. He and everybody else involved are absolutely going to get pardoned, and that's a good thing. No one knows better than Donald Trump how these petty tyrants can leverage the unjust justice system. He's not going to put up with it. He's not going to default to the idea that somehow, because the establishment declares that someone has been convicted, that means it was just and fair. It doesn't.

So, when somebody complains about the pardons, laugh at them. Laugh at their frustration that their injustices can be undone. Laugh at their anger that their ability to seize power through the weaponization of government is going to be blocked. And laugh at the hilarious notion that they can somehow convince red America to ratify a constitutional amendment to limit the pardon power and therefore make the Left totally unstoppable.



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


‘Children Died’ And 20 Other Shocking Things An FDA Scientist Just Said About Covid Shots


‘Like many academic physicians, we felt the FDA and CDC abdicated their duty to the American people,’ Prasad wrote.

The same corporate media and “expert” class that cheered censorship and did their best to “fact-check” dissent out of the discussion during the peak of Covid panic are on edge after a top U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official pledged to revamp the vaccine approval process. His commitment to reform comes on the heels of an unreleased report that found children died after receiving the Covid jab.

In a recent five-page memo to staff at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the center director and FDA Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad committed to acknowledging “for the first time” that Covid shots “have killed American children.”

The report outlining the deaths that Prasad repeatedly references is not yet public. His paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the U.S. government’s response to Covid, the Covid jab, and the Biden administration’s shot mandates, however, reveals more in detail about the role the FDA played in ignoring the adverse events regulatory agencies and media repeatedly claimed did not happen.

At Least 10 Children Died After Covid Jab

In the first paragraph of the letter to his staff, Prasad declared that 10 children “have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”

These deaths, he continued, were not only classified by staff as “likely/probable/possible attribution” to the jab, but also “certainly an underestimate due to underreporting, and inherent bias in attribution.”

“This safety signal has far-reaching implications for Americans, the US pandemic response, and the agency itself, which I wish to discuss here,” he added.

CDC Overlooked Covid Shot Safety Signal

Speaking of safety signals, some of the first indicators that people experienced severe side effects linked to the Covid shot were “reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis.” Prasad noted that the heart inflammation appeared more in groups such as “young, healthy boys and men — those least likely to experience bad covid outcomes.”

“The risk was as high as ~200-330 per million doses given in the highest risk demographic groups,” he warned.

Despite the FDA’s alleged monitoring of these cases, Prasad said both the FDA and CDC “were not the first to recognize the safety signal.” In fact, in April 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claimed that her agency had not “seen a signal” even though “we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given.”

“Many felt this statement was dishonest and manipulative,” Prasad said, noting that the Israelis recognized the safety signal that same year.

FDA, CDC Ignored Evidence Of Booster Mandate Harm

In 2022, Prasad, now-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, and senior advisor Tracy Beth Hoeg MD PhD authored a peer-reviewed paper outlining the “Risk-Benefit Assessment” for Covid booster shots for young adults. At the time, the researchers concluded that “booster mandates may cause a net expected harm.”

The FDA and CDC, however, ignored the research and “did not quickly attempt mitigation strategies such as spacing doses apart, lowering doses, omitting doses among those with prior COVID-19,” per the paper’s suggestion.

“Like many academic physicians, we felt the FDA and CDC abdicated their duty to the American people,” Prasad wrote.

FDA Ignored Safety Signal Until After Selling Young Boys On Jabs

Not only does Prasad allege the FDA fail to take action on the myocarditis concerns, but he also claims the regulatory agency “delayed acknowledgement of the safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to younger boys 12-15.”

“Had the acknowledgement come early, these younger boys, who likely did not require

COVID-19 vaccination, may have chosen to avoid the products,” Prasad added.

The FDA Has Never Admitted There Were Deaths After Covid Shots

Prasad said his colleague Dr. Hoeg determined earlier in 2025, based on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports, that children died after receiving the Covid jab. The FDA, however, has “never publicly admitted” that.

In fact, when Hoeg presented her investigative findings to “OVRR and OBPV stakeholders,” her material was leaked to corporate media, who were told Hoeg set out to “create a false fear regarding vaccines.”

The Real Number Of Covid Jab Deaths Is Higher Than Believed

After Hoeg’s presentation, Prasad commissioned a “detailed analysis of deaths voluntarily reported to the VAERS” from OBPV using a “subjective scale.” What they found based on an “initial analysis of 96 deaths between 2021 and 2024” was “no fewer than 10 are related” to the receipt of a Covid shot.

“If anything, this represents conservative coding, where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicted in cases of ambiguity. The real number is higher,” Prasad warned.

Biden’s Vax Mandates Bear Some Blame

Prasad wrote that children who were classified as “healthy” and “faced tremendously low risk of death” from Covid were “coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death.”

“In many cases, such mandates were harmful,” Prasad wrote. “It is difficult to read cases where kids aged 7 to 16 may be dead as a result of covid vaccines. Did COVID-19 vaccine programs kill more healthy kids than it saved?”

There Are Still Many Unknowns

Since the FDA does not require manufacturers to prove their vaccines work on children, Prasad said data to determine the benefits for healthy children to receive shots is still lacking.

“Furthermore, COVID-19 was never highly lethal for children, and now MIS-c has decreased drastically, and the harms, to kids, are comparable to many respiratory viruses for which we do not provide annual immunization,” Prasad wrote.

Simply put, Prasad said it is still unknown “how many fewer kids would have died had they been vaccinated” and “how many more kids died from taking vaccines than has been voluntarily
reported.”

“Instead, the truth is we do not know if we saved lives on balance,” Prasad concluded.

Vaccine Reaction Reporting Suggests Adverse Events Fly Under The Radar

VAERS claims to be one of the “CDC’s and FDA’s multifaceted approach to monitoring safety after vaccines are licensed or authorized for use.” Prasad noted, however, that adverse events to shots are “passively reported.”

“It requires a motivated person, often a doctor, to submit the information. The submission process is tedious and most people who start the form give up along the way. Many more deaths may be unreported,” he added.

FDA Failed To Enforce Sponsors’ Commitment To Conduct Certain Studies

Additionally, Prasad alleged that the FDA failed to follow up with Covid jab sponsors who committed to studying the effect of the shot on “pregnant women and to document subclinical myocarditis” after their product hit the market.

“Putting these facts together, it is horrifying to consider that the US vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection,” Prasad continued.

Covid Shot Investigation Only Possible Because Of Trump’s FDA Pick

“There is no doubt that without this FDA commissioner, we would not have performed this
investigation and identified this safety concern,” Prasad wrote, noting “this fact also demands serious introspection and reform.” He demanded to know why deaths were not “reviewed in realt time” and why it took four years after the Covid shot debuted to even “perform this analysis.”

Vaccines Are Not Universal

Prasad firmly believed that “many vaccines have saved millions of lives globally, and many have benefits that far exceed risks,” but warned they are never made to be perfectly effective for every member of the population.

“The right drug given to the right patient at the right time is great, but the same drug can be inappropriately given, causing harm. The same is true for vaccines. The US government’s coercive and unethical covid-19 vaccine mandates in young people may have been harmful,” he wrote.

Prasad acknowledged that “there is no doubt that an elderly, un-immune American benefitted from Doses 1 and 2 in 2020.”

“The people who might have benefit most from vaccination were those too old to be affected by workplace mandates — another Biden administration blunder.”

Anyone Claiming Covid Causes More Myocarditis Than The Jab Is Wrong

Prasad said claims that the Covid virus causes more heart inflammation than the shot are rooted in studies that used a “false denominator.”

Covid Shot Doesn’t Prevent Transmission

Americans who noticed that Covid shots did not prevent the virus from spreading were incessantly finger-wagged and censored. Prasad, however, confirmed yet again that even those who received the jab “still get Covid anyway.”

“No amount of covid vaccines stops a person from getting covid, so the risk is not virus vs vaccine. It is vaccine + virus vs virus alone. I am not aware of any analysis that does this right, and we have performed an empirical review of this fact,” he wrote.

Leaks Were ‘Unethical,’ ‘Illegal,’ and ‘Factually Inaccurate’

Prasad said that while he believes the leakers believed they were “doing the right thing,” their execution was wrong. He indicated that Hoeg’s determination that “COVID-19 vaccines did result in the death of children,” no matter the pushback that conclusion may have received from disgruntled staffers, was correct.

“[A]ny small differences in opinion about specific cases are due only to the fact that subjective attribution of death is inherently a topic where reasonable people may have subtle disagreements. But the overall order of magnitude and directionality show concordance between Dr. Hoeg and long-time CBER staff,” Prasad wrote.

Safety Won’t Be Sacrificed On The Altar of Vaccine Maker Incentives

The FDA’s role in the vaccine approval process, Prasad wrote, is “not our role to lower evidentiary standards or mask safety concerns to create artificial financial incentives to make vaccines.” Since there’s no such thing as a “generic” version of a shot, Prasad hinted that vaccine manufacturers can charge what they wan and still get market approval, essentially guaranteeing them “long tails of earnings.”

Evidence-Based Vaccines

CBER under Prasad, the director committed, “will be to direct vaccine regulation towards evidence based medicine.” In practice, Prasad wrote that includes acting quickly on safety concerns, withholding authorizations for vaccines on pregnant women “based on unproven surrogate endpoints,” and secure trials on new drugs before approving them.

“We will re-appraise safety and be honest in vaccine labels,” Prasad declared.

Flu Shot Framework Will Be Revised

The flu shot system that has dominated sick season for years, which Prasad called “an evidence-based catastrophe,” is also eligible for reform. Historically, Prasad warned that flu shots were marketed based on “low quality evidence, poor surrogate assays, and uncertain vaccine effectiveness measured in case-control studies with poor methods.”

FDA’s Multiple Vaccine Studies Created ‘False Sense of Efficacy and Safety’

Additionally, Prasad warned that the FDA has ignored “the benefits and harms of
giving multiple vaccines at the same time.” Instead, the regulatory agency has relied on randomized studies that Prasad claims are “too small to draw any conclusions
from — creating a false sense of efficacy and safety.”

“OVRR and OBPV staff will be tasked with writing guidelines to reflect these changes, and the
mission of CBER will change to reflect this worldview,” Prasad wrote. “Never again will the US FDA commissioner have to himself find deaths in children for staff to identify it. Vaccines will be treated like all other medication classes– no better or worse than AAV vectors, monoclonal antibodies, or anti-sense oligonucleotides.”

‘No Evidence’ That Covid Shots Benefit Third Parties

Prasad wrote that he has “seen no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines, which do not halt transmission, benefit third parties.” He did, however, claim that he also has “no doubt that MMR vaccines do provide third party benefits when administered to high enough fractions of society.”

Leakers And Close-Minded Staff Welcome To Resign

Moving forward, Prasad said he remains “open to vigorous discussions and debate on these topics, as I have always been.” Yet, he warned that any debates “should be private, internal to FDA, until they are ready to be made public.”

Employees who disagreed with “these core principles and operating principles” were encouraged to resign.

“For those who choose to remain in CBER, I look forward to working with you, learning from you, discussing with you, and interacting with you on our shared mission: to elevate vaccine science to 21st-century evidence-based medicine,” Prasad concluded.



What Happened to the Threat of Christian Nationalism?


Not too terribly long ago, the American Left was warning us about the incoming "Christian theocracy" and the threat of "Christian nationalism." On MSNBC, a guest classified the memorial for Charlie Kirk as a "Christian nationalist" event. They said the same thing when President Trump loosened workplace rules for government employees concerning religious expression, and when an Alaska Air flight attendant told travelers to "have a blessed day."

Back in February, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02) said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was taking a "sledgehammer to the wall between church and state" for attending the National Prayer Breakfast, a tradition dating back to the 1950s, and an event attended by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

After Pope Francis died in April and the Catholic Church entered into the conclave to name a new Pontiff, President Trump posted a meme depicting himself as the Bishop of Rome. As a Catholic, I saw it for what it was: a troll, and a funny one at that. Leftists, of course, lost their minds and had a newfound respect for Catholicism that only seems to rear its head when they can use it to dunk on President Trump.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) is the latest Democrat to embrace a form of Christian nationalism that he and his fellow Democrats would balk at on any other day. 


We cannot be lectured by Democrats who support inherently evil things like abortion and transgender surgeries, nor should we tolerate such scolding. As with all things Democrat, don't look at what they say, look at what they do.

The Biden-Harris administration targeted Christians and traditional Catholics, classifying them as "domestic terrorists," they put several Christian pro-life activists in jail under an abuse of the FACES Act, they demand information from Christian pro-life pregnancy centers in transparent attempts to bully and intimidate donors (in an attempt to bankrupt and shutter such organizations), they don't believe in religious freedom when it comes to abortion, they kick Christians out of their rallies, they want to deny religious people government jobs, they use the full weight of the government to harrass religious business owners, and they ban Christian services on government property.

At the same time that Democrats were pearl-clutching over President Trump's AI-generated papal imagery, Democrats in Washington were waging an actual war on Catholicism and attempting to undermine the Seal of the Confessional, one of Catholicism's sacraments. They did this by pushing legislation that would force Catholic priests to report crimes revealed in confession to local authorities or face criminal penalties.

I didn't see a single Democrat decry this blatant and brazen violation of our Constitutional rights. Thankfully, Catholics beat back the attack on their faith, and Washington folded on that law. But that doesn't mean it won't rear its ugly head again.

In the meantime, cynical opportunists like Senator Markey have the audacity to quote scripture in an attempt to browbeat us into not only continuing unfettered illegal immigration, but to providing these interlopers with billions in taxpayer-funded benefits as they rape, murder, assault, and harm American citizens. The government has a duty to protect innocent life, as does Christianity. Democrats have no interest in doing the former, and want to use the latter to continue shrugging off their responsibilities.

In his eyes, our unwillingness and failure to fork over funds and tolerate crime means we're not true Christians. That couldn't be further from the truth, of course. Christians can, and have, cared for the poor and hungry for years — without the government footing the bill, in many cases. Because that's what actual charity is all about, and what actual Christianity does. And yes, it's not lost on me the utter hypocrisy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) taking millions in taxpayer funds to help "resettle" illegals (then whining about it when that revenue stream ran dry).

That wasn't charity, either, and I notice Markey and his fellow Democrats didn't whine about "Christian nationalism" or the "wall between church and state" when the USCCB was doing their bidding and undermining federal law on our dime. And here I thought "Christian nationalism" and the impending "Christian theocracy" were threats so grave to America that the last administration had to classify us as terrorists.

It appears to Democrats that "Christian nationalism" is like Schrödinger's cat: it both is and isn't a threat, (D)epending on who is reading the Bible.

Funny how that works, isn't it?