Friday, March 1, 2019


Stacks Image 336990
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
(Friday Church News Notes, March 1, 2019,, 866-295-4143) - 
On February 4, Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb signed the DOCUMENT ON HUMAN FRATERNITY FOR WORLD PEACE in Abu Dhabi. It is based on the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God. The pope said the document “is born of faith in God who is the Father of all and the Father of peace” (“Pope: Peace document born of God,” Vatican News, Feb. 5, 2019). The document “invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations to advance a culture of mutual respect in the awareness of the great divine grace that makes all human beings brothers and sisters.” The Grand Imam of al-Azhar, who is based in Egypt, holds a prominent position in the Sunni branch of Islam. This is the latest step toward a one-world religion and is further preparation for the coming Antichrist’s peace pact. The first major move toward this was the FIRST PARLIAMENT OF WORLD RELIGIONS in Chicago in 1893. This was the first formal gathering of representatives of Christianity and eastern religions. Hindu swami Vivekananda was given a three-minute standing ovation when he got up to speak. He urged the crowd to reject the “demons” of “sectarianism, bigotry, and fanaticism,” so that human society could advance and the world could be filled with peace and blessing. A WORLD CONGRESS OF FAITHS, held in London in 1936, was organized by the famous British explorer-soldier Francis Younghusband who believed that there is a “divine spark” within man and called God “the Central Spirit of Things” (Marcus Braybrooke, A Wider Vision: A History of the World Congress of Faiths, 1936-96). THE TEMPLE OF UNDERSTANDING was established in 1960 by Juliet Hollister to “create a more just and peaceful world.” Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the U.S. president, was an active supporter and called it a “Spiritual United Nations.” The Temple of Understanding is closely affiliated with the United Nations and hosted the UN’s 50th anniversary celebration in 1995. Its offices are located in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, a radically liberal Episcopal church. THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, which was held 1962-65, opened the doors for Roman Catholic involvement in interfaith dialogue. Vatican II announced that “whatever is true or good or noble among other peoples or religions owes its origin finally to God.” Vatican II stated that people in other religions can be saved by their “faith,” but it also reaffirmed its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. In 1964 the Vatican established thePONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE. Roman Catholic interfaith dialogue was shaped by Cardinal Francis Arinze during his presidency from 1984 to 2002. Over the years he sent “fraternal” greetings to and facilitated dialogue with every sort of religionist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Janist, Animist, whatever. In 1988 Arinze said, “Every human being is looking for God,” and, “The Christian should take notice of the beautiful elements in the religion of the other person” (Arinze interview with Ralph Rath, “Mutual Respect,” A.D. 2000 Together, Fall 1988, p. 7). In 1965, the leaders of seven world religions came together in San Francisco for aCONVOCATION OF RELIGION FOR WORLD PEACE. Pope Paul VI sent his blessing and the UN Secretary-General U Thant participated in person. On October 1986, Pope John Paul II held the first DAY OF PRAYER FOR WORLD PEACE in Assisi, Italy. Its objective is to find world peace through interfaith unity: “peace within the church and peace with all mankind.” The 160 participants included leaders from 32 Christian denominations and organizations and 11 non-Christian religions. The prayers included petitions to “the Great Thumb” by an African tribal animist and to “mother earth” by a Crow medicine man (“A Summit for Peace in Assisi,” Time magazine, Nov. 10, 1986). In 1988, the COUNCIL FOR A PARLIAMENT OF THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS (CPWR) was formed to “cultivate harmony between the world’s religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its other guiding institutions in order to achieve a peaceful, just, and sustainable world.” It is intended to be a continuation of the first Parliament of World Religions of 1893. The CPWR has sponsored interfaith Parliaments in 1993 in Chicago; in 1999 in Cape Town, South Africa; in 2004 in Barcelona, Spain; in 2009 in Melbourne, Australia; in 2015 in Salt Lake City, Utah; and in 2018 in Toronto. In November 1994, Pope John Paul II hosted the WORLD CONFERENCE ON RELIGION AND PEACE. It was the first official interfaith conference at the Vatican and the theme was “Healing the World: Religions for Peace.” In 1995, the UNITED RELIGIONS ORGANIZATION was founded by Episcopalian priest William Swing, Communist Mikhail Gorbachev, and others. The announcement for the new organization was made at a syncretistic service held at the Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco. Alan Jones, dean of the cathedral, said the service was “a summons to the great religious traditions of the world to be in deeper conversation with each other ... as workers for peace, as guarantors of the sacredness of the earth” (San Francisco Chronicle, June 26, 1995). In his book Reimagining Christianity, Jones calls the doctrine of the cross a “vile doctrine.” Prayers and chants were offered to a dozen deities. During the service, children mingled water from over 30 “sacred waters” from around the world, including the Ganges, Amazon, Jordan, and Lourdes, to signify world unity. As the waters were poured into one bowl a children’s choir sang a dirge from the Missa Gaia, an earth-worshipping concert originally commissioned by the St. John the Divine Episcopal Cathedral in New York City. Swing said, “We are on the threshold of the first global civilization.” The WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, which was formed in 1948 and represents roughly 340 denominations, is deeply involved in interfaith activities. In 1978 its Ecumenical Prayer Cycle included this syncretistic prayer: “O God, the Parent of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Parent: thou who art to us both Father and Mother: We who are thy children draw around thy lotus feet to worship thee. Thy compassion is as the fragrance of the lotus. ... We see thy compassion in Jesus. He gives content to the Hindu name for thee -- Siva, the Kindly One. He gives significance to the Muslim address of thee -- Allah, the Merciful. He embodies in the Godhead what the Buddhist worship in the Buddha -- compassion itself. Thou God of all the world, let our history teach us that we belong to thee alone and that thou alone dost belong to us” (Ecumenical Prayer Cycle, 1978, p. 157). The World Council’s Sixth Assembly, July 1983 in Vancouver, British Columbia, opened with Native American Indians tossing offerings of fish and tobacco into a “sacred fire” and dancing around the pagan altar. It also featured a Hindu dance to the “earth mother goddess.” “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-6).
The Exclusive Gospel in a Pluralistic Culture
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Claims of exclusivity are often met with great resistance in societies where different religious paths are accepted as equally valid. Christians who communicate the exclusivity of their faith will experience this in a variety of ways. They are either dismissed, ridiculed, mocked, or considered intolerant. These responses to the Gospel have been occurring for 2000 years. Paul wrote: "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23).
Why is there so much antagonism toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is because people do not want to be told there is only one way to heaven in a society deeply influenced by pluralism and postmodernism. Yet when it comes to the Gospel, Christians must contend for its purity and exclusivity (Gal. 1:6-9). The call for ecumenical unity among all "professing Christians" must be met with determined opposition. We know that "truth" is exclusive and cannot be compromised because "No lie is of the truth" (1 John 2:21). Truth is as incompatible with error as light is with darkness. Any teaching which contradicts or opposes biblical truth is false, and it must be exposed for what it is. As Christians, we cannot be passive or indifferent towards any distortion of the Gospel. We must contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3).

The Gospel is exclusive because it is about only one Person and two historical events (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It reveals the good news of man's redemption, which was accomplished by the eternal Son of God incarnate, through His atoning sacrificial death and glorious resurrection from the dead. The Gospel is a unique and eternal message (Rev. 14:6). It is the same message for every generation and must be proclaimed, protected and defended. 

Only One Savior
The apostle Peter proclaimed this exclusive statement to an already hostile audience: "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Only One Mediator
The apostle Paul made this exclusive declaration: "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Only One Way
The Lord Jesus declared, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). He said, "the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Mat. 7:14).

Only One Source of Eternal Life
The apostle John declared: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11-12). John also said, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36).

Only One Exemption from Judgment
Jesus satisfied divine justice as the sinless substitute for all believers. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).

The Gospel is also exclusive because it is the only message with the divine power and promises to reverse the curse of sin (Rom. 1:16; 8:21). God's Word makes these exclusive promises to anyone who repents and believes the Gospel. 

Sins are forgiven (Col. 2:13-14)
Divine justice is satisfied (Rom. 5:1; 8:1)
Christ's Righteousness is imputed (2 Cor. 5:21)
Redemption is paid (Heb. 9:12)
Reconciliation with God is accomplished (2 Cor. 5:18)
Death is conquered (John 11:25)
Resurrection is promised (John 5:29)
Salvation is secured (1 John 5:13)

How can Christians communicate the exclusivity of the Gospel effectively in our religiously pluralistic society? We need to understand that the Gospel is offensive to those who are offensive to God. It humbles people under the sovereign hand of God and strips them of their own righteousness. We must tell them they have broken God's law, they are condemned by God's justice, they deserve God's wrath, they need God's mercy, and their only hope is God's Son.


Anthony Fauci Says Under Oath MMR Does Not Cause Encephalitis

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On Feb. 27, 2019, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a public hearing on “Confronting a Growing Public Health Threat: Measles Outbreaks in the U.S” that was also broadcast live on C-span. Parents across the nation watched and heard the renowned Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),1 either tell a bald-faced lie or show his ignorance when he testified, under oath, that MMR vaccine does not cause encephalitis. This large dose of disinformation drew gasps of protest from parents attending the Capitol Hill hearing and prompted Committee Chair Diana DeGette (D-CO) to bang the gavel and warn that “manifestations of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House and this Committee.”
It is really hard to watch a distinguished physician like Dr. Fauci mislead legislators by blatantly denying the damage that serious vaccine reactions like brain inflammation can do to children’s brains. It is also hard to watch legislators believe everything they are told by government employees just because they have MD or PhD written after their names.  
At 53:05 in the 95 minute House public hearing (42:05 on C-Span), Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) asked this question: “I want to look at some of the concerns. I’ve heard some parents claim that measles vaccine can cause brain inflammation, known as encephalitis. Is that true? Is that true?”
Looking like he was buying time, Dr. Fauci answered, “Brain inflammation…encephalitis…”
Rep. Guthrie persisted, “Can measles vaccine cause encephalitis? The vaccine…”
Dr. Fauci without blinking took a Pinocchio turn and answered, “The vaccine? No.”
When the audience broke out in audible disbelief and as the Chair brought the gavel down, Fauci knew he was busted and quickly murmured, “…rare.”
Then Nancy Messonnier, MD, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases,2 jumped in to help Fauci out. She stated authoritatively, “In healthy children MMR vaccine does not cause brain swelling and encephalitis.”
Rep. Guthrie appeared concerned and continued to pursue the line of questioning, “So if a child was unhealthy when they got the vaccine, would it…?”
Messonnier replied, “There are rare instances in children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system in whom the vaccine is contraindicated. One of the reasons it’s contraindicated is, in that very specific group of children, there is a rare risk of brain swelling.”
Rep. Guthrie followed up with a logical and very important question, “But would a parent know their child was in that category before…”
And then Dr. Messonnier proceeded to tell a whopper of her own, quickly reassuring the congressman that parents would know if their child’s brain was going to swell before getting MMR vaccine because doctors would tell them so. She answered without hesitation, “Certainly. And that’s why parents should talk to their doctor.”
Let’s more closely examine the disinformation (false information intended to deceive or mislead3) dished out to legislators on Capitol Hill by two of the highest-ranking public health officials in the U.S.
DISINFORMATION: MMR vaccine does not cause encephalitis (brain inflammation).
THE TRUTH: MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and acute and chronic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction).

MMR Vaccine Manufacturer Package Insert

The MMR product manufacturer package insert published by Merck & Co., the manufacturer of MMR vaccine, states: “Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of M-M-R II or measles-, mumps-, and rubella-containing vaccine administered since licensure of these vaccines. The risk of serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains less than the risk of encephalitis and encephalopathy following infection with wild-type measles (1 per 1000 reported cases).” Warnings include: “Due caution should be employed in administration of M-M-R II to persons with a history of cerebral injury, individual or family histories of convulsions, or any other condition in which stress due to fever should be avoided.” The same warnings are included for Merck’s MMRV vaccine.

CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement (VIS)

Under the informing, recording and reporting safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,4 doctors are required by law to give the VIS to parents before children receive a CDC recommended vaccine. The VIS handouts for MMR and MMRV vaccine state that “severe” adverse events may include “deafness; long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness; and brain damage.”  The VIS for MMRV vaccine states that one of the “moderate” adverse events that can occur is “Infection of the lungs (pneumonia) or the brain and spinal cord coverings (encephalitis, meningitis).”

Medical Literature Reports

There is additional evidence in the medical literature that MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and encephalopathy, including the following references.
The large prospective case controlled National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) conducted in Britain, which investigated all causes of encephalitis, encephalopathy and chronic neurological dysfunction in children, was published in 1981. Researchers concluded that, “The risk of a serious neurological disorder within 14 days after measles vaccine in previously normal children irrespective of eventual clinical outcome is 1 in 87,000 immunizations.”5
In 1998, federal public health officials published a report in Pediatrics reviewing the medical records of children who had filed claims in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) and had suffered “acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death” following receipt of live attenuated measles vaccine alone or in combination with rubella and mumps vaccines (MR, MMR). They stated, “Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.”6
A report, “Inflammatory/Post-Infectious Encephalomyelitis,” was published in 2004. The authors stated, “The non-neural measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations are most commonly associated with post–vaccination encephalomyelitis. The incidence is 1-2 per million for live measles vaccinations.”7
In 2007, another prospective study conducted in Britain investigating the risk of serious neurologic disease after vaccination in early childhood (2-36 months old) was published in Pediatrics. The researchers concluded, “There was no evidence of a raised relative incidence of serious neurologic disease in any of the specified risk periods with the exception of a raised relative incidence of 5.68 in the 6–11 days after measles, mumps, rubella vaccine.”8
In 2013, a study was published in 2013 in PLOS One that evaluated cases of post vaccine acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) reported to the U.S. vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) and the EudraVigilance post-authorisation module (EVPM) of the European Union.9 Researchers described ADEM as “an immune mediated inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) that commonly occurs within one month from antigenic challenge.”
When looking at ADEM reports in the VAERS database related to a specific age group, they stated, “We observed that vaccines against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and FLU were those most commonly involved in the 0-5 years age group (13%), followed by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (11%) and DTaP (9%).”

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Injury Table

According to the March 21, 2017 Vaccine Injury Table in the VICP, “encephalopathy or encephalitis” occurring within 5 to 15 days of receipt of vaccines containing measles, mumps, and rubella virus or any of its components (e.g. MMR, MM, MMRV) is a compensable illness, disability or injury.10
DISINFORMATION: Parents know whether their child will suffer encephalitis or encephalopathy after MMR or MMRV vaccination because doctors identify those children and do not vaccinate them.
THE TRUTH: There are very few CDC approved contraindications to vaccination, and doctors cannot reliably predict which children will be harmed by MMR vaccine or any other vaccine before they are vaccinated.  

Few Vaccine Contraindications or Medical Exemptions

According to CDC guidelines, almost no health condition qualifies for a contraindication and a medical exemption to vaccination, including for measles containing vaccines.11 Children with HIV and cancer and those who have suffered convulsions after vaccination and other serious vaccine reactions are routinely vaccinated.12

Doctors Cannot Reliably Predict Who Will Be Harmed by Vaccines

The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, published a report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality in 2012 and noted that, although there is individual susceptibility to vaccine reactions, doctors are unable to reliably identify those who are genetically and otherwise more susceptible:
“Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a pre-existing susceptibility. These predispositions can exist for a number of reasons – genetic variants (in human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, illness or developmental stage, to name just a few, all of which can interact. Some of these adverse reactions are specific to particular vaccines, while others may not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of vaccine; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not.”13

Limited Scientific Evidence About Children Susceptible to Vaccine Harm

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine published a report examining the safety of the CDC’s recommended early childhood vaccine schedule (0 to 6 years old), The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety, and reiterated that there is limited scientific knowledge about how to identify children at higher risk for suffering vaccine reactions:
“The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children, who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) is limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definition of exposures or outcomes.”14

$4 Billion Government Payout to Vaccine Victims

If individuals more susceptible to being harmed by vaccines are being identified by doctors before vaccination takes place, if children are not suffering encephalitis, encephalopathy and other crippling vaccine reactions that end with a lifetime of chronic illness and disability or even death, then why has the government paid out $4 billion in compensation to vaccine victims, including to those who have been harmed by measles containing vaccines like MMR?
If FDA licensed, CDC recommended and state mandated vaccines like MMR vaccine do not cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage, why did Congress give the vaccine industry a partial liability shield in 1986 and the U.S. Supreme Court declare vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe” and hand the vaccine industry complete immunity from vaccine injury lawsuits in 2011?15

Disinformation About Vaccine Reactions Betrays the Public Trust

Parents, who trusted and did what they were told to do when they took their healthy children into a doctor’s office to be vaccinated and then watched their children suffer brain inflammation and regress into chronic poor health, learn that it is not a good idea to believe everything that doctors say about vaccines. People who were healthy, got vaccinated and were never healthy again, quickly learn how to tell the difference between a doctor telling the truth about vaccine safety and one who is not, because their lives depend upon it.
If public health officials can go before Congress and provide demonstrably false statements about MMR vaccine reactions, what else are they fooling the public about?

Federal Health Officials Influence State Vaccine Laws

On Jan. 30, 2019, Dr. Fauci gave an interview to CBS and said, “These [measles] outbreaks are due to the anti-vaccine movement.” He also said that scientific studies show claims about vaccine risks are “based purely on fabrication” and that, “There’s a category called philosophical reasons not to get vaccinated and that particular category has been abused. So I’m in favor of states or cities making regulations that require a more strict interpretation of the exemptions that one has to not get vaccinated.”16
As noted in a press release issued by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) on Feb. 25, 2019, state legislatures have the constitutional authority to make vaccine laws and the federal government should not be interfering in state rights. Although federal health officials make vaccine use recommendations and state health officials use that information to encourage state legislators to turn those recommendations into state vaccine mandates, state legislatures have the power to decide which vaccines to mandate and what kind of exemptions to allow.
Right now, the NVIC Advocacy Portal reports that 140 vaccine-related bills are pending in 31 states, some of which propose to restrict, eliminate or expand medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions. Thousands of parents have already lined up to attend public hearings in state legislatures to defend the legal right to exercise parental and informed consent rights and make voluntary decisions about vaccination for their children without being punished for the decision made.

Federal Officials Should Be Held Accountable

There are more than a dozen new vaccines being developed that likely will be federally recommended and states will be encouraged to mandate in the future.17 Decisions are being made in state legislatures and in Congress right now that will affect the health and lives of this generation and generations of Americans to come. For the health of our nation, Congress should take the blinders off and hold federal officials accountable for the false statements they make about vaccine safety.
1 Anthony S. Fauci, MD. Biography. Oct. 9, 2018.2 Nancy Messonnier, MD. Biography. Mar. 28, 2016.3 The Free Dictionary. Definition of Disinformation.4 National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
5 Alderslade R, Bellman MH, Rawson NSB, Ross EM, Miller DL. The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A Report on 1000 Cases of Serious Neurological Disorders in Infants and Young Children from the NCES Research Team. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1981.6 Weibel RE, Casserta V, Benor DE et al. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated with Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics 1998; 101(3): 383-387.7 Bennetto L, Scolding N. Inflammation/Post Infectious EncephalomyelitisJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75 (Suppl 1): 122-128.8 Ward KN, Bryan NJ, Andrew NJ et al. Risk of Serious Neurologic Disease After Immunization of Young Children in Britain and Ireland. Pediatrics 2007; 120(2): 314-321.9 Pellegrino P, Carnovale C, Perrone V et al. Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Onset: Evaluation Based on Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting SystemPLOS One Oct. 18, 2013.10 HRSA. Encephalopathy, Encephalitis, Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Injury Table. Mar. 21, 2017.11 CDC. Recommendations and Guidelines of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Contraindications and Precautions. Table 4-2. Conditions incorrectly perceived as contraindications or precautions to vaccination (i.e., vaccines may be given under these conditions). Jan. 10, 2019.12 Rubin LG, Levin MJ, Lyungman P et al. 2013 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Clinical Practice Guideline for Vaccination of the Immunocompromised HostClin Infect DisDec. 4, 2013; 58(3).13 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality.(Evaluating Biological Mechanisms for Adverse Events: Increased Susceptibility). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2012. Chap. 4 (103-238).
14 Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Summary: Health Outcomes (p. 5-6) and Conclusions About Scientific Findings (p. 11) and Review of Scientific Findings (p. 75-98). The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies; Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press 2013.15 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big PharmaNVIC Press Release Feb. 23, 2011.16 CBS News. Measles Outbreak Fueled by Anti-Vaccination Movement, Infectious Disease Expert Says. Jan. 30, 2019.17 World Health Organization. WHO Product Development for Vaccines Advisory Committee (PDVAC) meeting. June 26-27, 2018.




Willfully ignoring threats to national security

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It has been said that “Timing is everything.”
On February 26, 2019 the House of Representatives voted to block President Trump’s declaration of an emergency on the southern border.  Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that the declaration was a violation of the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution.
It would appear that failures to secure our nation’s borders against the entry of massive numbers of illegal aliens is a clear violation of our Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4 states:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Invasion is defined, part as:
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:  an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
Furthermore, there would have been no need for any additional action by the administration if Congress had simply voted to fund the construction of a barrier to protect our nation from the illegal and un-inspected entry of people and contraband including narcotics and weapons, into the United States.
Congress failed to act responsibly and in accordance with the oaths of office that each member took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by preventing invasion and domestic violence.
The media was quick to pick up on the Congressional response to the President’s action to fund the construction of a barrier to protect the vulnerable and highly porous U.S./Mexican border.
On February 26, 2019 Mass Live reported, “Mass. Democrats vote to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.”  Of course, it was not just Massachusetts Democrats who voted against the declaration, but the comments in the article are worth considering.
Also on February 26th, the New York Times reported, “House Votes to Block Trump’s National Emergency Declaration About the Border.”
The action by Congress was not the only story making headlines, on February 26, 2019, however.
On that same day, that the Democrats and some Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the Presidential declaration of emergency, ABC News reported, “26 years ago: 6 die in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”
Finally, on February 26, 2019 the Washington Post reported, “Again, 9/11 first responders are pleading with Congress to fund their health care. Again, Jon Stewart is joining them.”
If we were to play the game of “connect the dots,” there is a common thread that connects these news reports: the issue of national security and the threats posed to America and Americans by terrorism and the consequences of failures of the immigration system that enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and carry out deadly terror attacks in 1993 and again in September 11, 2001.
While a barrier on the U.S./Mexican border wouldn’t, by itself solve the immigration crisis, it is a vital element of what must be a multi-pronged approach to secure our nation and protect our citizens.
After the attacks of 9/11, politicians from both parties demanded to know, “Why weren’t the dots connected?”
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 the dots have been repeatedly connected, all too often in the wake of additional deadly terror attacks conducted by alien terrorists who easily gained entry into the United States by a variety of means.
Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of the extremely violent Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel was just convicted of smuggling huge quantities of narcotics into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border.  His organization is responsible for numerous murders and crimes of violence and corruption.
There have been a long list of Congressional hearings and official government reports that warn that among the numerous threats that the U.S. faces around the world, many of those threats emanate from Latin America.
On January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, "World-Wide Threat Assessment," that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.
Here is an excerpt from that report:
Transnational Organized Crime
Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.
Drug Trafficking
The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.
Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.
Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Other Organized Crime Activities
Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.
Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.
Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.
Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.
Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.
The first paragraph of the preface of the official report,  9/11 and Terrorist Travel, will provide my “closing argument” against the Congressional betrayal that America is now witnessing:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.