Monday, August 12, 2019


Legal decision reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jews
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Europe has gone down this road before. It didn’t end well. This time, its principal motivator is the continent’s rapidly growing Muslim population, as well as its endless infatuation with an increasingly anti-Semitic Left. “Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, August 9, 2019: The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a “Pandora’s box” of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.”
The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.
With the EU court’s 15 judge panel now poised to issue its own binding judgment in the case, legal experts are warning that a potential decision mandating such labeling could pave the way for goods from any disputed territory to receive such treatment. The decision also could trigger U.S. anti-boycott laws meant to stop Israeli-made goods from being singled out for unfair treatment on the international market….
The legal dispute first began after France passed a law mandating that products made in the West Bank territory of Israel be labeled as coming from an “Israeli colony,” a label not applied to any other products across the globe.
The term “Israeli colony” is not legally required to be applied under EU law and was seen as overly burdensome by Israeli business leaders.
Following the French decision, the Israeli Psagot winery filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination against Jewish companies. That lawsuit eventually made its way to Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.
That court now appears poised to affirm the advocate general’s opinion mandating that Israeli goods be labeled in a fashion that opponents say is unfair and anti-Semitic in nature….
_____________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO: hater-label/ 


Echoes of Nazi actions against Jewish businesses

"Pope Francis said recently that he was “concerned because we hear speeches that resemble those of Hitler in 1934.” He was talking about the rise of extreme nationalism and populism, which he feared could lead to the fragmentation of the European Union. The pope should be worried about any current resemblances in Europe to the Nazi past, but the pope’s praise of the European Union as an antidote is premature. Indeed, the European Union itself is on the verge of reviving the Nazis’ stigmatization of Jewish-made products on the pretext that they come from “occupied” Palestinian territories."


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
BARNEGAT TOWNSHIP, N.J. — A mayor in New Jersey took a stand on Tuesday against a new state law that requires public school curriculum in the state to include information on the contributions of homosexuals and transgenders in American history.
According to the Asbury Press, during the regular meeting for Barnegat Township, Mayor Alfonso Cirulli forthrightly stated that homosexual activism is “an affront to Almighty God” and that it is his duty to protect the people.
Cirulli, a former assistant principal, was referring to a bill that Gov. Phil Murray signed into law in January that requires social studies curriculum for middle and high school students to include teaching on the “political, economic, and social contributions of persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.”
S. 1659 will take effect for the 2020 school year, and it will be up to each Board of Education to “have policies and procedures in place pertaining to the selection of instructional materials to implement the requirements.”
Cirulli believes the new law indoctrinates children and infringes on the religious rights of parents. He is also concerned about how teaching could confuse youth and thrust them into an unnecessary “identity crisis.”
“They could go to the extremes with this, like bringing in a drag queen to kindergartners,” he stated, according to the Washington Post. “They’re just forcing an issue on kids, where I don’t think the state has any interest sticking their nose.”
“Everyone has the right to live his or her life the way they want, but no group has a right to force others to comply with their beliefs, deprive them of their First Amendment rights, and strip the rights of parents of how to morally raise their children,” the mayor continued. “That especially applies to state and federal authorities.”
Cirulli, who is an elder at his church in Toms River, also lamented that liberal politicians are behind other ungodly laws and they will have to give an account to God for their actions.
“Now is the time for the righteous to stand up for their rights,” he declared.
According to the Asbury Press, most of those in attendance listened quietly without comment, but one resident who counsels homosexual and transgender youth complained during the meeting that she “felt like [she] was in church.”
The New Jersey Family Policy Council, however, expressed support for the mayor, stating in a blog post that the “[s]exual orientation, desires, and feelings of historical figures [are] not appropriate or relevant to the teaching of the social contributions of historical giants of the past.”
“More importantly, many parents have taken notice these curriculum standards seek to normalize ‘LGBT identities’ and teach they are acceptable for all people, of any time, including our students, while rejecting religious and moral beliefs that offer love and hope to those struggling with these identities,” lamented President Len Deo.
The organization has consequently decided to form a parental rights group consisting of pastors, educators and parents. Cirulli urged residents throughout New Jersey to demand a repeal of the curriculum law.
“Together, we must speak with the love of Christ to those who identify as gay and transgender and simultaneously protect the next generation from the confusion of moral progressivism,” Deo said.

Photo Credit: Jeffrey Stanley

As previously reported, the Bible teaches that all men are in the exact same predicament: All are born with the Adamic sin nature and are therefore “by nature the children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), having various inherent feeling and tendencies that are contrary to the law and will of God and being utterly incapable of changing by themselves (Job 14:4).
It is why Jesus came: to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21) and that they might be “saved from wrath through Him” (Romans 5:9).
Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must be regenerated by the second birth, and be transformed from being in Adam to being in Christ, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.
2 Corinthians 5:15-17 also teaches, “He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.  … Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Using the explicit terminology of Critical Race Theory and Identity Politics, the website belonging to JD Greear just posted a daily devotional explaining why Christians should be giving up their “privilege.”
JD Greear is the ‘woke’ President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and you can read more about him here. Greear has recently been tweeting the ultra-leftist views of a lesbian, has said that voting for Democrats in 2020 is “great,” has claimed that saying Muslims and Christians worship the same God ‘has merit,’ and earlier in January of this year preached that it’s our obligation as Christians to “spread the privilege around,” which is how Neo-Marxists say, “redistribute wealth.”
In a podcast back in January, Greear defined “privilege” as “a kind of invisible set of [unearned] assets.” Christians call such things “blessings,” while Marxists call it, “privilege.” Christians praise God for blessings, Marxists lament them. Christians pray for more blessings, Marxists demand that people give up the privilege they already have. At the time, Greear’s remarks – clearly stained with overt Identity Politics – got the attention and received the ire of theologians like Alex MacFarland, who called it plainly for what it was.
However, in a devotional today that went out on Summit Church’s website entitled, Three Ways to Lay Down Your Privilege, the author uses James and John’s argument about the seating arrangement in Heaven as recorded from Mark’s Gospel and then makes the following bizarre eisegetical twist:
In one statement, Jesus flips the world’s relationship with power upside down. Everyone who possesses power, in this world or God’s kingdom, possesses privilege. Those in the world use their privilege for their own benefit. Those of us in God’s family, however, have the privilege of laying down our power for the benefit of others.
Jesus’ comment in the passage was, “Whoever wants to become great shall become a servant.”
This was nothing about ethnic power dynamics, systemic prejudices, White Privilege, or the Proletariate versus the Bourgeoisie. This is Scripture-twisting on the part of JD Greear, not unlike that engaged in by the many theists who have wed a perverted theology to Marxism over the years.
Greear’s website writes…
Do you live, work, or worship in an environment where your race, gender, or even personality type is the majority? If so, you possess power and privilege. Don’t apologize—rejoice! You have a unique opportunity to love God and others well. Here are three ways our church is learning how to do this-
Again, this idea is Critical Race Theory. It is not like Critical Race Theory. It is not similar to Critical Race Theory. It is not derivative of Critical Race Theory. It is Critical Race Theory.
The notion that if you belong to a majority identity group you innately have power or privilege should be explained to the great many homeless people in Portland who are Caucasian, or should have been explained to black people of South African during Apartheid. Likewise, the idea that a person of a minority identity group doesn’t have power or privilege (say, for example, a black president of the United States), is equally asinine.
The three demands placed upon those in majority identity groups in the article include: (1) look at minority identity groups, (2) listen to minority identity groups, and (3) hand over your privilege and blessings to them.
Alan McCulloch, who wrote the article for Greear’s website, says…
My prayer for the church is that we would rejoice in the privilege of laying down power rather than wallowing in the bondage of protecting it.
The “power” terminology is, again, part-and-parcel to Critical Race Theory, which views everything through the lens of a power and privilege dynamic.
As the Harvard website explains about CRT, “Critical race theories combine progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms…One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of privilege maintained despite the rule of law [which already provides] equal protection of the laws.”
The solution to race-based privilege, according to CRT, is to guilt majority classes into giving minority classes their wealth, privilege, or power and if unsuccessful, to redistribute such things through the power of democracy.
Albert Mohler recently denied there was a leftward turn in the SBC in the Baptist Press. However, it’s hard to say that with a straight face considering this far-left extremism is coming straight from the Southern Baptist president.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel Fahrenheit 451, firemen don’t put out fires; they create fires to burn books.
The totalitarians claim noble goals for book burning. They want to spare citizens unhappiness caused by having to sort through conflicting theories.

Censorship Is Control

The real aim of censorship, in Bradbury’s dystopia, is to control the population. Captain Beatty explains to the protagonist fireman Montag, “You can’t build a house without nails and wood. If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood.” The “house” Beatty is referring to is opinions in conflict with the “official” one.
If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.

A Nobel Laureate Copes with Conflicting Opinions

When making decisions, we often face conflicting theories. Daily, we face choices about what to eat. Although the government issues ever-changing dietary guidelines, thankfully, the marketplace supports personal dietary decisions ranging from carnivore to vegan. We are free to choose our diet based on our evaluation of the available evidence and the needs of our bodies.
When we face health issues, decisions become tougher. There is an orthodox opinion, and there are always dissenting opinions. For example, the orthodoxy recommends statins to reduce high cholesterol. Others believe high cholesterol is not a health risk and that statins are harmful.
Nobel laureate in economics Vernon Smith was taking a prescribed statin and recently observed the impact it was having on him:
In the last week I had a very clear (now) experience of temporary memory loss. I did a little searching and found this article summarizing and documenting1 the evidence over many years.
Smith continues,
Such incidents have been widely reported, but the problem did not arise in any of the clinical trials, but neither were they designed to detect it.
Smith had to weigh the purported benefits against the side effects:
Statin effectiveness in reducing heart/stroke events needs to be weighed against this important negative. Since I am actively writing, this is a primal concern for me, and I have stopped taking it.
A free person understands that there is no one “best” pathway. Although experts have knowledge, a free person takes responsibility, makes a choice, and bears the consequences. We never know what the consequences would have been had we made a different choice.
Some people don’t like to take responsibility for health choices. They prefer to do what they’re told by the doctor.
“Do you understand now why books are hated and feared?” asks Ray Bradbury’s character Professor Faber in Fahrenheit 451. Faber responds to his own rhetorical question:
Because they reveal the pores on the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.
Bradbury is reminding us that life is messy. Often there is no comfortable one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges we face.
Despite the evidence against statins, the medical orthodoxy would like you to believe that those who question statins are being hoodwinked by fake news. The orthodoxy wants you to believe there is one size for all.
Duke University’s Dr. Ann Marie Navar is the Associate Editor of JAMA Cardiology. In her article, “Fear-Based Medical Misinformation,”2 she rails against the “fake medical news and fearmongering [that] plague the cardiovascular world through relentless attacks on statins.”
She writes many patients remain concerned about statin safety. In one study, concerns about statin safety were the leading reason patients reported declining a statin, with more than one in three patients (37 percent) citing fears about adverse effects as their reason for not starting a statin after their physician recommended.
Dr. Navar takes the position that concerns about safety are “fake medical news,” spread in part by ignorant patients via social media. Don’t worry, she counsels, reports are incorrect when they claim “that statins cause memory loss, cataracts, pancreatic dysfunction, Lou Gehrig disease, and cancer.”
Fake news? Dr. David Brownstein (no relation) disagrees:
The Physicians Desk Reference states that adverse reactions associated with Lipitor include cognitive impairment (memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, and confusion associated with statin use). Furthermore post-marketing studies have found Lipitor use associated with pancreatitis. Other researchers have reported a relationship between statin use and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Finally, peer-reviewed research has reported a relationship between statin use and cataracts. Statins being associated with serious adverse effects has nothing to do with fake news. These are facts.3
To be sure, more physicians would agree with Dr. Navar than Dr. Brownstein, but should treatments be dictated by those on one side of the argument? After all, due to human variability, statins may both save some lives and impair or kill other people.
With some doctors questioning whether to prescribe statins for everyone,4 there is a large financial incentive to stifle debate.
Can you imagine a future government-controlled health care system, completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry, mandating statins for everyone? I can.
There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues, like the statin debate. Already Google is “burning” sites that question the medical orthodoxy about statins., operated by Dr. Joseph Mercola, is one of the most trafficked websites providing alternative views to medical orthodoxy. If I were researching statins, I would certainly read several of the numerous essays5 questioning statin use and the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Essays at usually provide references to medical studies. Personally, since Dr. Mercola sells supplements and I am a supplement skeptic, I read his essays—like I read all medical essays—with a grain of salt.
Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who has helped thousands of women find alternatives to psychotropic drugs prescribed to treat depression and anxiety. In her book, A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives,6 Brogan reports that one of every seven women and 25 percent of women in their 40s and 50s are on such drugs. She explains,
Although I was trained to think that antidepressants are to the depressed (and to the anxious, panicked, OCD, IBS, PTSD, bulimic, anorexic, and so on) what eyeglasses are to the poor-sighted, I no longer buy into this bill of goods.
For their unorthodox views, Dr. Brogan, Dr. Mercola, and others like them are treated as medical heretics. Dr. Brogan and Dr. Mercola have documented (here and here) how a change in Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.
From time to time, Google updates algorithms determining how search results are displayed; there is nothing inherently nefarious in such actions. Google has achieved its market position by doing a better job than other search engines.
According to Dr. Mercola,7 before Google’s most recent June 19 algorithm update,
Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.
After their June 19 algorithm update, Google is relying more on human “quality” raters. Google instructs raters8 that the lowest ratings should go to a “YMYL page with inaccurate potentially dangerous medical advice.” YMYL stands for “Your Money or Your Life.” Google says,
We have very high Page Quality rating standards for YMYL pages because low-quality YMYL pages could potentially negatively impact users’ happiness, health, financial stability, or safety.
Does that sound reasonable? If a site argues for treatments other than the medical orthodoxy then, by definition, the site can arouse readers’ cause for concern and, for some people, unhappiness. Do we really want Google to assume the role of Bradbury’s firemen?
Google wants to protect you from conflicting opinions. And if you don’t think that’s a problem, imagine sometime in the future when searching for information on monetary policy you only find results for Modern Monetary Theory.9
Google thinks its intention to “do the right thing” is enough to prevent abuses; some Google employees would disagree.10
Google is not eliminating access to alternative health pages; it is making it harder to find them. Typical health searches will still generate plenty of “facts,” just not conflicting facts. In Fahrenheit 451 Captain Beatty explains the government’s strategy: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year.”
Instead of “conflicting theory,” Captain Beatty explains the strategy is to “cram” the people “full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.”
Filled with “facts,” Captain Beatty explains, people will “feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” Beatty assures Montag that his fireman role is noble. Firemen are helping to keep the world happy.
The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we’re the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don’t let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don’t think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now.
The only way Google will maintain its dominance is to continue to meet the needs of consumers. Whether Google continues to “burn” websites is up to us. Google will continue to sort out unorthodox views as long as “we” the consumer continue to rely on Google’s search engine.

Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
1 Schultz BG, Patten DK, Berlau DJ. The role of statins in both cognitive impairment and protection against dementia: a tale of two mechanismsTransl Neurodegener 2018; 7: 5. 2 Navar AM. Fear-Based Medical Misinformation and Disease PreventionJAMA Cardiology June 26, 2019. 3 Brownstein D. From Vaccines to Statins: A Reply to Fake News in JAMA Cardiology. 4 Murphy J. Should everyone be taking statins? MDLinx Nov. 16, 2018.5 Mercola J. Do You Take Any of These 11 Dangerous Statins or Cholesterol Drugs? July 20, 2010.6 Brogan K. A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives. Harper Wave 2016.7 Mercola J. Google buries Mercola in their latest search engine update, Part 1 of 2. June 24, 2019.8 The June 4 2019 Google Broad Core Algorithm Update. June 2019.9 Phelan J.  Modern Monetary Theory: Debunking the Latest Incarnation of Government’s Magic Money Tree. Foundation for Economic Education Mar. 29, 2019.10 Copeland R. Fired by Google, a Republican Engineer Hits Back: ‘There’s Been a Lot of Bullying’ The Wall Street Journal Aug. 1, 2019.



Meet Marianne Williamson, spiritual guru, friend of Oprah's, presidential candidate

SEE:; QUOTE: "A top Sanders adviser is the influential “spiritual teacher” Marianne Williamson, whose self-help books have been heavily promoted by Oprah Winfrey and sold millions."; QUOTE: "A former nightclub singer, Williamson herself ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2014 on a platform that included abortion rights, gay rights, socialized medicine, and the need to combat what she perceives as man-made global warming, nowadays called climate change." 

Marianne Williamson: If She Is President, She Will Take Control of Your Children and Make Them New Agers

EXCERPT: As president, I would advocate for the following: Mindfulness training in the schools.—Marianne Williamson, 2019 (source)
Marianne Williamson: If I Am President, I Will Take Control of Your Children and Make Them New Agers
By Philip Gray
Course in Miracles promoter, Marianne Williamson, who is running in the 2020 presidential election, has big plans for the children of this country if she is elected. Among other things, part of those plans is to make sure children in American public schools are trained in mindfulness meditation. While tens of thousands of public schools in the U.S. are already teaching children mindfulness meditation, no doubt, with a New Age president, every school would be including it.
As president, I would advocate for the following: Mindfulness training in the schools.—Marianne Williamson, 2019 (source)
Williamson also promises to advocate for “universal pre-K.” This would help make sure that children as young as 3 and 4 would be placed into the public school system. Advocates of universal pre-K believe they need more time with America’s children and want to get their hands on them much earlier than 5 or 6 (Kindergarten).
Parents beware. If Marianne Williamson (or another candidate with her “values,”) becomes president, this country’s children will be at even greater risk than they are now. And you can be sure, she will not be advocating for homeschooling families.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
During a campaign speech she gave in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 19, 2019, Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson characterized government mandates requiring children to get vaccinated as “draconian” and “Orwellian.” According to NBC News reporter Julia Jester who covered the event, Williamson said, “To me, it’s no different than the abortion debate. The U.S. government doesn’t tell any citizen, in my book, what they have to do with their body or their child.”1 2 3 4 5 6
Williamson added:
I’ve met very sincere, very smart people on both sides of the vaccine issue. I understand that infectious diseases are no small deal. But I have to say I know, as a mother, if you’re telling me that I have to put a needle in the arm of my baby and I don’t feel good about what’s in that needle, I’m not sure about that.7
The  morning after she made those comments, Williamson was immediately attacked by the media and issued the first of a series of apologies. Via Twitter, she wrote:
I understand that many vaccines are important and save lives. I recognize there are epidemics around the world that are stopped by vaccines. I also understand some of the skepticism that abounds today about drugs which are rushed to market by Big Pharma. I am sorry that I made comments which sounded as though I question the validity of life-saving vaccines. That is not my feeling and I realize that I misspoke.1 2 3 4 6
But the media would have none of it. Later in the day, Williamson appeared on the television talk show The View and encountered aggressive questioning from the show’s five hosts, who appeared to be concerned that she was a closet “anti-vaxxer.” Williamson was grilled several times about whether she did or did not support mandatory vaccinations. Each time, she avoided answering the question directly, which had the effect of fueling the talk show hosts’ skepticism about her position.
In response to a question from co-host Meghan McCain regarding Williamson’s “draconian” and “Orwellian” comments on vaccine mandates, Williamson said:
I think I misspoke in that one sentence. But I’d like to express myself. The fact that you have a problem with the revolving door policy by which Big Pharma and the CDC and the FDA are so cozy so that millions of Americans who are not anti-science and are not anti-vaccine have some deep concerns, the days of blind faith in Big Pharma are over, the days of blind faith in the idea that our government agencies are doing the proper oversight and proper advocacy for the American people against, at times, the overreach of profit-making industries that are putting money before people… that is not an irrational or unreasonable thing.8
But McCain was not satisfied with the lengthy answer, so she asked a follow-up question seeking clarification… “Now you’re okay with mandatory vaccinations?”8
Williamson responded: “It’s not that now I’m okay, I haven’t changed since yesterday. I misspoke on that one sentence. But I will say this, when I am president of the United States there will be a commission of scientists, learning so that the American people see what’s going on with these vaccines, who are not paid by Big Pharma.”8
In a roundabout way, what Williamson seemed to be saying is that she is not a fan of vaccine mandates. While she says she regrets having used words like “draconian” and “Orwellian” to describe such mandates, she appears to be wary whether the government is doing a good enough job regulating the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that are produced and sold by drug companies. Williamson’s proposal to set up a commission of independent scientists to “see what’s going on with these vaccines” suggests that she is not entirely sold on the popular narrative that “vaccines are safe and effective” and she believes there is room for improvement.
However, co-host Sunny Hostin was not satisfied with Williamson’s response. She clearly wanted a yes or no answer on the question of vaccine mandates. Hostin followed up, “I don’t know that you’ve answered Meghan’s question. Do you support mandatory vaccination?”8
“I understand that public safety must come first. But I also understand that we must have a balance between public safety and the issue of individual freedom. I do not trust the propaganda on either side, Williamson said.8
At that point, co-host Joy Behar, who was clearly frustrated, interrupted saying, “I know, but this kind of nebulous answer makes people paranoid. Yes or no?”8
Looking exasperated, Williamson gave up trying to make her point and simply offered the most succinct and safest answer she could think of to put an end to grilling: “I support vaccines. I support vaccines.”8
Unfortunately for Williamson, certain media outlets have decided to drill down on her for taking a centrist, rather than a polarized, position. Some journalists and news commentators appear to suspect that, while Williamson may lament her choice of words in describing her opinion about vaccine mandates, if she opposes forcing or coercing people to get vaccinated, then she is “anti-science” and “anti-vaccine.”
Apparently, it is no longer enough to support the availability and use of vaccines. In order to avoid being tagged with the “anti-science” and “anti-vaxxer” labels, one must wholeheartedly believe in and publicly support the idea that government officials and doctors should force people to submit to medical procedures such as vaccination without their consent.
On July 17, 2019, Williamson tweeted, “Misrepresentations of my work are in high gear this morning, so just in case it need be said: I am not anti-vaxx. I am pro-science & medicine.”9
It should be noted that supporting government vaccine recommendations is not exactly the same as supporting forced use of all government recommended vaccines without the informed consent of individuals or parents of minor children.
On July 30, Williamson appeared on MSNBC’s “The Beat With Ari Melber” and, again, her draconian and Orwellian remarks were raised. Williamson responded:
Well, the issue of draconian and Orwellian… This is the issue. When I was a child, we took far fewer vaccines and there was much less bundling and there was much less chronic illness. I don’t know why… you know, this is not a topic that I have consciously chosen to, this is not some big topic for me. … What I’m saying is that in 1986, there was this vaccine protection law, and there have been $4 billion in vaccine compensation payments that have been made, and there was much less chronic [illness]. There was something like 12 percent chronic illness among our children previous to that law and there’s 54 percent now. … You know, what is going on here?10
I want more scientific research [on vaccines]. I want more scientific research that is not paid for by Big Pharma. In a Williamson administration, there will be more scientific review, more science. … I want less scientific review that is paid for by Big Pharma.10
Seeking clarification regarding Williamson’s position on government vaccine mandates, program host Ari Melber pressed, “Just so we’re clear, your view, though, of federal or state government vaccination requirements is they are valid or you may oppose them?”10
Again, Williamson resisted being pigeon-holed…
Absolutely. With any medical intervention, there are benefits and there are risks. The government always has to come down on the side of the public good. Absolutely. I was vaccinated. My daughter was vaccinated. Of course. Of course, I am. I just want to know that when it comes to the review of our drugs and when it comes to all issues related to drugs, just as we have to now learn from what is happening with the opioid crisis, I want independent regulation that is conducted by the government that is not paid for by Big Pharma.10
You can see what Williamson is getting at. While she may, indeed, believe that “no exemptions” mandatory vaccination laws are both draconian and Orwellian, her main beef is with a government drug and vaccine regulatory system that she concludes has been compromised by undue influence from the pharmaceutical industry, which is primarily interested in financial profit. Voicing concern that there is undue influence by vaccine manufacturers on effective government regulation of vaccines to ensure their safety is not being anti-science or anti-vaccine. It merely represents an unwillingness to have blind faith in a rigged system.
As Williamson said on the TV show Real Time with Bill Maher in 2015:
I think that the government has earned our distrust. I think the pharmaceuticals have. This is the problem when institutions lose their moral authority. We know that the government has suppressed information and withheld information. We know that the medical establishment has suppressed information and withheld information. So that, at this point, even when they say something that we should listen to, people have a skepticism, and that’s the real problem. This is what happens when we don’t believe our government enough and we don’t believe our medical establishment enough. The answer is not to tell us we’re kooks but for them to get their act together so that they are more trustworthy again.11
She added:
There’s a skepticism which is actually healthy on this issue of vaccinations.11
In her efforts to explain her well-reasoned position on vaccines, the legitimate points Williamson is making have been lost in what has become an all-too-familiar attempt to discredit and label anyone who asks for improvements in government regulation of vaccines or questions the ethics of forced vaccination policies as “anti-vaccine.” It is a convenient way for the media to use name-calling to deflect attention away from intelligent conversations about vaccine safety science and vaccine mandates that are going on behind closed doors despite the media’s attempts to publicly shut them down.

3 Kaplan A. 2020 Candidate Marianne Williamson: Vaccine Mandates Are ‘Orwellian’ Daily Beast June 20, 2019. 4 Klar R. 2020 Democrat Marianne Williamson says she misspoke in calling vaccine mandates ‘draconian’The Hill June 20, 2019.5 Perper R. Marianne Williamson gives confusing answer on whether she supports anti-vaxxersMSN Aug. 1, 2019. 6 Stieb M. Where Does Marianne Williamson Actually Stand on Vaccines? New York Intelligencer August 2019. 7 MSNBC. Marianne Williamson on MSNBC. YouTube June 22, 2019. 8 The View. Marianne Williamson Talks Vaccinations. YouTube June 20, 2019. 9 Pitovsky M. Williamson defends her views on vaccinesThe Hill July 17, 2019. 10 MSNBC. 2020 Dem Marianne Williamson Addresses Vaccination Controversy. YouTube July 31, 2019. 11 HBO. Maher Real Time with Bill Maher: Vaccination. YouTube Feb. 6, 2015.




How Hillary's seances led to the rise of the Left's New Age guru.

"Are Marianne Wiilliamson’s crazy rants about dark psychic forces and force fields unrelated to her politics, or is the socialist conviction that the world needs careful management by the enlightened to cure us of our human nature exactly the sort of political philosophy that attracts quacks and kooks?"