The Experiment of Self-Government Continues

I’ve just started going through the Hillsdale College online course[i] on The Federalist Papers. I hadn’t read The Federalist Papers in some time, and the revisit has been a good reminder of the quality of thought that went into our founding documents.

If you’ll recall, The Federalist Papers are essentially a series of op-eds, written after the Constitutional Convention, to encourage the states to ratify the new US Constitution. The writers are Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Hamilton and Madison were both pretty young, 30-something. Jay was older, but ill health got in the way of his help, which is why Madison got recruited to help finish the task. They all use the pseudonym of Publius. Their reasoning was that they wanted people to grapple with their arguments, rather than possibly dismiss them because of the personalities presenting them.

Alexander Hamilton (left), James Madison, and John Jay, writers of The Federalist Papers,
image from the Audible version

The first letter, Federalist 1, lays out the larger plan. It’s sort of an outline for the letters that follow. Hamilton puts it this way (I have put them in bullet point form):

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

·       The utility of the union to your political prosperity.

·       The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union.

·       The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object.

·       The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government.

·       Its analogy to your own State constitution.

·       and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

There were also, it should be noted, The Anti-Federalist Papers, which were even more voluminous. These were also newspaper op-eds intended to offer opposing arguments. And they are also valuable arguments. The titles might be a bit confusing, but they did not trust a central (federal) government with so much power; they would prefer more federalism—that is, they would rather have power disbursed among the states, rather than centralized.

But the Constitutional Convention took place because the previous confederation of states was too weak to accomplish the purposes for which the Constitution was needed. Re-read the Preamble to the Constitution to see the list of the Constitution's purposes. The Federalist Papers take on many of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists.

What the back and forth does show is that the founders went through a great deal of thought and deliberation—and necessary compromises—to start a country in a new way, with different purposes.

It probably ought to be a requirement for high school graduation—or at least for college graduation—to read and understand The Federalist Papers, so that a person can understand both the content and reasoning of our basic law: the US Constitution.

But there is, admittedly, a change in language over time. And, unfortunately, there has been a degradation of language skill since education became a government task. And, so, many people do not put forth the effort to understand older writings.

The founders’ way of writing exemplifies both their command of abstract ideas and of the English language.

Here’s a sample from Federalist 1:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

I thought I’d take a stab at putting that in modern-day plain English, which, by definition, will be less eloquent.

My Translation: It has been said that it is left to the people of this country, as an example through their actions, to determine whether societies really can establish good government by thoughtful, intentional choice, or whether societies are stuck determining their governments through chance and force.

Out of curiosity, I then put the task to ChatGPT

ChatGPT Translation: "People often say that it seems like it's up to the citizens of this country—through their actions and as an example to others—to answer a big question: Can human societies really create a good government by thinking things through and making conscious choices? Or are they forever stuck relying on random events and force to shape their political systems?"

That’s not too bad. I suppose if a careful reading gets too tough, a person could get AI assistance to make it plainer. But I think there is value for a person to become more exposed to the higher-level language and therefore more apt to understand it.

Looking again at Federalist 1, Hamilton is talking about arguments, and how good people might end up on both sides of an issue, depending on what they are most passionate about. So it’s not a good idea to be overly certain of one’s rightness. That leaves us with the need for good, reasoned arguments to help us as a society decide on issues—including important issues like the one before them of whether to ratify the Constitution.

Hamilton offers a few quotable phrases in Federalist 1. Here’s one:

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And a related one, which seems to apply to our day:

To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and by the bitterness of their invectives.

This next one is cautionary:

A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government…. [O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.

And one more. This one follows his admission that he has personally already made up his mind: he favors ratifying the Constitution. And he plans to lay out his reasons. This comes just before the bulleted list we started with:

My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

Good language can clarify and lead to truth. But it doesn’t always. Some people are skilled with words and use them to obfuscate the truth. That may be a reason we seem to prefer plain speaking today. (In Texas, plain speaking was preferred from the outset.)

As I’m writing, our President and his erstwhile ally and helper during the first months of his second presidency have been having a war of words. It has been pretty ugly. So maybe a reminder that even in the early days of the nation, good men who differed on certain issues attacked each other pretty mercilessly with words. A prime example was the rivalry of close friends John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The 1800 presidential campaign was a seriously negative one.

Jefferson’s campaigners (so not necessarily Jefferson himself, but in his support) called Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character.” Adams’ campaigners called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow.” And there were worse. They didn’t speak for a dozen years thereafter. Then they softened somewhat and became letter writing correspondents for the remainder of their lives, which ended on the same day, July 4, 1826, 50 years after the Declaration.

I don’t know whether our current feud will last for years or mend soon (I hope soon). The Babylon Bee was quick to summarize the split with this heading:

Judge Determines Trump Will Get the Nation on Weekdays, While Musk Gets Every Other Weekend and Holidays.

image of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk
 from the satire site The Babylon Bee

Some point out that both are right: we need that “Big Beautiful Bill” to pass, to fund border protection and other necessary agenda items; also, it’s disappointing that DOGE spelled out so many easy cuts, yet Congress is unwilling to make them.  Others speculate that this is theater, or that one or both might be a bit unhinged.

Ever since July 13, 2024, it seems to me that this country is in God’s hands, and I’ll just pray for all those involved. And hang on tight during the wild ride.

Hamilton, who speaks so reasonably in The Federalist Papers, died in a duel, following a war of words with a political rival Aaron Burr. Hamilton had said something negative about Burr at a dinner, which got back to Burr, who demanded he retract his words. It ended with Burr calling for a duel. Hamilton hated the practice (his oldest son had died in a duel) but accepted as a matter of honor; it was said he had intended to shoot wide. Burr had been practicing and did not miss. Burr did not regain his reputation, as he had hoped; he was seen as a murderer, but fled and was not prosecuted for that crime. He was later tried, and acquitted, for treason for a plot to invade Mexico and possibly also to cause the western states to secede. He had previously been Vice President. It was quite a fall from grace. Let’s just say a war of tweets, or as a last resort lawsuits over libel or slander are better than dueling.

Hamilton was considered one of the lesser thinkers during the founding era. He was a man of action, and somewhat impulsive. And yet his writings show a great respect for reasoned arguments. We might also note that, as challenging as they are for us today, the typical neighbor in the pub could understand them and converse about them.

In our world today we could use that better understanding of reasoned arguments in search of truth and wisdom. I still have hope that our experiment in self-government will prove that it can be done.

______________________

[i] Hillsdale College online courses are always free, although you can donate. They cover a wide range of information. Each includes multiple lectures, along with readings and quizzes, and are self-paced. I’ve gone through at least a dozen since their first Constitution 101 course. 

Daniel’s Chiasmus and a Parallel in Our Day

First a seldom-told Bible story. And then something about our day.

engraving of Nebuchadnezzar gone mad, found here

Chiasmus in Daniel

I’ve been studying Daniel for a while. I’m not an accredited Bible scholar, just a reader. Some years ago I heard someone mention that some of the chapters of Daniel are a chiasmus. As I look at it, I believe that includes chapters 2-8.

A chiasmus is a literary structure in ancient Hebrew writings—such as the Old Testament—that have a mirroring shape. There’s an idea expressed, then another idea, and another until it has reached its end point. Then that point somewhat repeats, and goes back through the other ideas, ending with a sort of restatement of the first idea. If you have a, b, c, d, then you’d have d, c, b, a. I think it looks something like a sideways V, or a greater than sign: >. But it was thought to resemble an X, which is where the work comes from : chi = X 

Here’s an example from Psalm 3:7-8:

And this one is Isaiah 60:1-3:

A chiasmus can be short or long, simple or complex. The multiple chapters of Daniel make up the longest I have looked at. If you take the chapters as a whole, your “a” sections are chapter 2 and 7-8. Chapter 2 is about a dream about the powerful kingdoms from Nebuchadnezzar down through Rome, and ending in the multiple kingdoms that follow Rome from its fall up until the final days, which is also the meaning of Daniel’s dream in chapters 7-8.

The “b” sections are chapters 3 and 6, both about those who refuse to betray their God, suffer a death sentence, but are preserved. In chapter 3 these are the three brothers in the fiery furnace, and in chapter 6 it’s Daniel in the lion’s den.

The center “c” sections are chapters 4 and 5, both of which basically show that a proud ruler who refuses to honor the real God will see their downfall; they lack power to prevent it.

The thing what triggered my recent study of Daniel was hearing something about a chiasmus in general. (I think this was a video podcast with Jack Welch, who has spent decades studying and discovering chiasms in the Book of Mormon. But I can’t pinpoint which video. Nor was he referencing Daniel; that idea came from somewhere else long before.) Anyway, the idea is that the focal point is the central turning point. In other words, it’s the central point that is most important.

That isn’t obvious to me in the examples above (which I found here). But, assuming that’s true, the central point of this Daniel chiasmus is comprised of these two chapters in the middle that we hardly ever talk about.

In chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar, the powerful Assyrian ruler who has taken the kingdom of Judah into captivity in Babylon, is a heathen ruler believing in many gods. But he does recognize that Daniel has the “spirit of the gods” in him, because of his ability to interpret dreams, and he makes him one of the principals in the kingdom, over the other advisors. Some believe it was Daniel’s teachings to these “wise men,” passed down through the ages, that gave the “wise men” the idea to look for the star to seek the Messiah many centuries later. (Or those New Testament wise men could have descended from people like Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, who descended from Abraham through is third wife, Keturah. Or they could have come from some scattered people from the northern kingdom of Israel, who were captured about 130 years before Daniel and his people were captured.)

So, Nebuchadnezzar honors Daniel, but he isn’t actually a convert. And there comes a point where he is hard-hearted and boastful. He has had a dream involving a tree cut down to the roots, which allows Daniel to warn him, but he doesn’t at that time repent. And, if I understand the story, not too long afterward he goes mad for some years (I think 7 years, or at least 7 periods of time). He’s like a wild man living among the cattle and eating grass. And then he comes to himself; he recognizes that he has no power of himself, but only what God grants. And, in his humbled state, he is returned to his throne.

Chapter 5 starts with Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar’s son, in the ruling position. He takes the temple vessels, which were captured and taken when they sacked the temple in Jerusalem. And he uses the holy vessels to serve wine to 1000 of his lords at a big, showy banquet. The result is, he sees the hand of a mighty being (probably God), writing on the wall. He’s frightened to his core; his legs are shaking. He can’t read the writing. So he goes through all his advisors—apparently Daniel had been somewhat retired under him—and none can give him the meaning of the writing. His wife calls to his attention that Daniel exists, and was much approved of by his father, and he should be able to read it.

So Daniel comes and does that. He tells Belshazzar the meaning of “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” which is, “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.” “Thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting.” “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” He thanks Daniel for the interpretation. He might even consider doing something to prevent the prophecy from taking place. But that very night, Belshazzar is slain and Babylon falls. Darius of the Medes takes over ruling.

The walls of Babylon were 40-100 feet thick and 300 feet high, running about 14 miles in length on each side.   No one thought the city could be taken without a long, drawn-out siege. But the enemy had used a drainage canal, and diverted the water from it, so troops could enter the city using the canal as a passageway. The city actually was conquered in a day—which parallels the prophecy in Revelation for figurative Babylon to fall in a day (or maybe in only an hour, depending on which verse).

The city ended up being more free under Persian/Median rule, so the people were willing to accept the new rulers. And that was the end of the Assyrian empire’s rule.

 

Our Day

So, what does this have to do with news in our day? I don’t know. I’m just looking at patterns. The two parallel dreams in chapters 2 and 7-8 definitely tell us something of our day, since we’re post-Roman Empire, with many nations. So maybe there’s a pattern for us in this chiasmus.

That central point is that a ruler who rejects God and claims power in himself can be taken out of power at God’s will.

In Nebuchadnezzar, there was a powerful ruler—the most powerful in the known world at that time—who lost his mind. He was technically still the ruler, but the people were ashamed of him, and left him alone, apparently, in his madness, for years. We aren’t told in scripture who filled the leadership vacuum in his absence.

We also had a “ruler” of the most powerful nation on earth who lost his mind. Hmm.

One more parallel is that the empire that came in to rule—and to liberate—was headed by Cyrus (Darius of the Medes was subordinate to Cyrus of the Persians). Trump has frequently been compared to Cyrus, particularly related to the Abraham Accords. So maybe there is a scriptural parallel going on. 

The news lately has been that people on that side of the political aisle are finally admitting that Biden had lost his cognitive abilities. Jake Tapper has a book he co-authored coming out. He personally spent years covering up and even squelching questions about Biden’s decline. But now we’re supposed to see him as virtuous for his truth telling. Megyn Kelly did a thorough take-down of him, as he tried to skate by, claiming he didn’t know until that debate last June; she wasn’t having it. 

Tapper’s theme seems to be that Biden’s real fault was announcing that he was running for a second term, thus preventing the party from going through a primary process to choose a successor and have time to campaign for that person.

But that’s not the real problem. Not even close.

Those of us with basic observation skills saw Biden’s decline by 2019, and brought it up during the 2020 campaign (leaving aside the corruption that should have disqualified him). He was never capable of handling the presidency. So the obvious question is—and has been for all these years—who was running the country?

Over the years, Obama has been cited as a possibility. He hung around Washington, DC, after his presidency ended, which is unlike all past presidents. It was like he was never going to let go of power. And he had a lot of Deep State power still during Biden’s regime. Maybe he had a spare office in a basement somewhere.

There was also the likelihood of Jill Biden, playing the role of Woodrow Wilson’s wife, Edith, keeping her husband’s incapacity out of sight of his cabinet following his stroke. Edith Wilson had intended to have her husband run for reelection, and just keep him mostly hidden the whole time. Crazy! So when Jill Biden was doing that very thing, people had a historical precedent to compare her to. She did, according to reports, run cabinet meetings, along with Hunter Biden, on occasion, especially this past year. At least Edith Wilson had the finesse to claim she was just taking notes for her husband, and she would bring back his responses; she wasn’t just coming out and claiming authority she didn’t have, even though she was illegally wielding it. In that case the cabinet, of Wilson’s own party (the Democrats then as well) threatened to remove him if she didn’t stop the reelection campaign. In Biden’s case, the cabinet, at least those allowed to see him, seemed fine with the coverup.

Recently the more specific question of the autopen has come up. The purpose of the autopen is to put the president’s signature on proclamations, awards, honorary things that no one would object to. Never, until Obama, was an autopen used for official business like signing a law in his absence. But during his term one was used when he was in Hawaii when his signature was needed. It was for something that he clearly intended to sign, so that precedent was set. But we assume there was a fair amount of paper trail to prevent use of the autopen without his express consent.

Under Biden, it’s hard to say whether any of his presidential signatures—even the real ones—were done intentionally. But with his severe decline—and image evidence shows this—many of his signatures were done by autopen. This could include all 6,000 of his end-of-term pardons. He was in St. Croix on vacation when a significant number were signed. There were other signatures when he was at the beach in Delaware (where he seemed to spend more time than at the White House).

President Trump has called for investigations into the legality of the autopen under these circumstances, possibly nullifying all those pardons. Investigations seem to be leading to the possibility that pardons were given in exchange for money.

tweet about Rep. Tim Burchett concerning
Biden staffers taking bribes for pardons

People on the inside were calling the “cabal” that was running the country the “politburo,” as in the old Soviet Union. Whatever it was, it was not democracy or constitutional leadership by a duly elected president.

Glenn Beck spent his Wednesday night special on this topic. He has a number of lists from various sources on who was taking it upon themselves to run our country according to their own agenda. And then he compared them. So we'll take a look at his chalkboard.

Glenn Beck's chalkboard on autopen use and coverup,
screenshot from here

To start with, to check their own thinking, they asked a couple of AI programs to list who—what positions—would be necessary to carry out a shadow presidency and keep it hidden. The first group consists of those who would be making decisions and actually using the autopen.

Group I—Decisions/Autopen

1.        Jeff Zeints/Ron Klain—both Biden’s Chief of Staff at different times

2.        Annie Tomasini—Deputy Chief of Staff

3.        Neera Tanden—Domestic Policy Advisor

4.        Jake Sullivan—National Security Advisor

Group II—Optics/Concealing

1.        Mike Donilon—Senior Advisor to Jill Biden

2.        Anthony Bernal—Jill Biden's Chief of Staff

3.        Ashley Williams—another Senior Advisor

4.        Steve Ricchetti—Counselor to the President

So that’s the starting point—speculation by AI and Glenn’s team. Then Glenn compares that to several others who has speculated.

Congressman James Comer, who says he intends to get to the bottom of this, suggests Neera Tanden, Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, and Ashley Williams. All four are among that total of eight.

He spoke with Lindy Li, a former Democratic fundraiser who got frustrated with the deceit and came out telling all. She gave two names: Jeff Zeints and Annie Tomasini. Both are in Group I.

Glenn looked at a January New York Times piece about the Biden White House deceit. That article names Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal. All four are among the total eight.

He looked at a Wall Street Journal article from December. That article names Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, Annie Tomasini, and Jake Sullivan. All five are among the total eight. 

Anthony Bernal, Annie Tomasini, and Ashley Williams,
in a tweet by @amuseMay 28

In Jake Tapper's/Alex Thompson's book mentioned above, they list Mike Donilon, Ron Klain, Steve Ricchetti, and Bruce Reid, who was Biden’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. He’s the only one that didn’t already appear among the total of eight.

Additional speculation from David Sacks, President Trump's Financial Advisor and Crypto Czar, adds Senator Elizabeth Warren to the list of Biden controllers (clip shown here). And then there was an undercover video of David Hogg of the DNC, claiming that the main controller was Jill Biden's Chief of Staff Anthony Bernal, in concert with the First Lady (clip shown here). Bernal was on the list of eight; Warren was not, but she had a lot of influence from her position on the Finance Committee.

If you are naïve enough to assume they were just carrying out the will of the president, because they knew him so well and were so loyal to his agenda, then you’d have to explain why Ron Klain had multiple meetings in the White House with worldwide cabal leader Alex Soros. And Klain was also the go-between for the Squad (radical wing) and Biden. (Biden's personal corruption was less ideological.)

And, if ideological reasons for their usurpation weren’t enough, you could assume greed was an encourager. Donilon made $4 million on the failed Biden campaign (I don’t know how you make money on a failed campaign, but apparently he knows). Ricchetti had several family members employed by the Biden administration.

These names are speculation only at this point. Investigations—and then prosecutions—have to be done based on evidence. But if any of these individuals weren’t involved, how did they not know what was happening? And who else was conducting this illegal usurpation of power?

We could say, Behold the Beasts of Revelation. One group carries out the evil tyranny; the other group uses propaganda to make it appear powerful.

I don’t think the beasts are limited to our country’s government. But this is definitely a prime example.

And it falls in a day. Which specific day? You could name the June debate last year, when the nation saw what most of us had been seeing for half a decade, that Joe Biden was in mental decline. Or you could name the July 13^th day when God spared Donald Trump’s life in Butler, PA. I had written before that the end of the 42-month reign of the beast (Rev. 13:5) might be late July 2024, which turned out to be when Biden’s campaign ended, 42 months after his inauguration.

There’s more liberty now. But we haven’t fully recovered yet. It’s a tough job after that messy tyranny. I pray we get there soon.

If the scriptures are telling us something, it is that God is in control. And honoring Him is necessary for protection, because He can take down Babylon (another name for the beast, and the worldwide cabal, the whore of all the earth, etc.) in a day. 

The Senate Hearing on Corruption of Science and Health Agencies

I spent some time the other day listening to the three-hour Senate Hearing (and relistened again the day I get this written): “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines.” The last time I wrote about a Senate hearing on COVID-19, I got censored. So we’ll see how this goes.

header for committee hearing video, screenshot from here

Here are some sources (more will be included in the text, plus footnotes mostly related to Dr. Thorp’s testimony):

·        This is the source, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs website, where you can view the entire hearing and also download opening statements. 

·        You can also watch it here on X. 

·        This is an excellent summary of the entire hearing: “COVID Vaccine ‘Safe and Effective’ Narrative Collapses on Camera” by The Vigilant Fox, on Substack, May 21, 2025. 

·        This is a story related to a study on high miscarriage rates, which I talk about in more detail below:  “Another Study Shows Higher Miscarriage Rate among Women Who Received COVID Vaccines” The Defender, Children’s Health Defense, May 5, 2025

·        This is another article about the Senate hearing: “This is Going to Be a Slog: Senate Hearing on Cover-Up of COVID Vaccine Risks Just the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’ Johnson Tells Committee," Science, Public Health Policy and the Law 

It was mainly ranking member Senator Blumenthal and Hawaii Governor Josh Green, MD, who were on the side of, “The vaccines saved lives,” and “Let’s make sure under no circumstances do we cause vaccine hesitancy.” And then there was Committee Chair Ron Johnson, with a line-up of doctors and scientists addressing mainly vaccine injuries: cardiologist and internist Dr. Peter McCullough; vascular researcher Dr. Jordan Vaughn; OB-GYN Dr. James Thorp; former neurosurgeon and now co-chair of REACT-19 Dr. Joel Wallskog; and attorney specializing in vaccine injury claims Aaron Siri.

They presented evidence that the myocarditis danger signal was available by late February 2021, just a couple of months after the vaccine rollout—but it was ignored. Officially, it was known to the CDC by April 2021, but the information was shared only with the “vaccine” makers, not with doctors or the public. Nor was the recommendation for myocarditis patients to avoid strenuous exercise (which means they especially endangered athletes who were required to get the injections in order to play their sports). 

Officially, this was the topic of the hearing. But they did bring up other injuries as well. And one got my attention.

Dr. James A. Thorp (OB-GYN) reported that the vaccine-induced miscarriage rate was much higher than reported. He said that the signal was hidden by combining those who had the vaccine in later trimesters (beyond when you would call a terminating event a miscarriage), whereas the strongest signal was with those getting the vaccine in the first trimester. He said that miscarriage rate was as high as the RU-486 abortifacient drug. 

Dr. James Thorp gives his opening testimony at the hearing

In his testimony, he says,

These entities falsely assured pregnant women that the vaccines were proven safe and essential for maternal, fetal, and newborn health, even though early evidence indicated quite the opposite[i]. Pregnancy itself was protective against COVID-19-related maternal mortality[ii].

The marketing (propaganda) approach had been to use pregnant women—the most vulnerable. If they could convince pregnant women that the injections were “safe and effective,” and necessary to protect their babies from a deadly virus—if pregnant women were convinced to get the injections, then the rest of the public would assume it was safe for them to take.

Thorp referred to a much-cited Shimabukuro study[iii], showing a 12.6% miscarriage rate, which is high but not too extraordinary. But he explains what the raw data actually show:

The authors claimed a miscarriage rate of 12.6%, but the raw data revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in women vaccinated during the first trimester. This is consistent with the 81% miscarriage rate noted in the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market data and is discussed in detail below. These figures mirror the effects of chemical abortion drugs such as RU-486.

Further down in his report, he shares additional Pfizer’s findings[iv] (from Pfizer’s p. 12):

·        A miscarriage rate of 81% (26 out of 32 cases, with 238 out of 270 cases lacking followup),

•           A five-fold increase in stillbirth rates—from an expected 5.8 per 1,000 to 31 per 1,000 (1 in 32),

•           An eight-fold increase in neonatal death rates—from an expected 3.9 per 1,000 to 31 per 1,000 (1 in 32),

•           There is a 13% incidence (17 out of 133 cases) of breastfeeding complications among newborns whose mothers received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy.

He adds this note: “Pfizer and the FDA sought to withhold the release of these post-market adverse event analyses for 55 to 75 years[v] [vi].” Any claims that they were transparent and/or making a concerted effort to inform doctors and the public are belied by that effort to withhold.

Thorp talks about the dangers of mRNA injections possibly altering the human genome—not just a multi-generational catastrophe, but a permanent altering. The damage would affect humankind forever. He says, “A strong case can be made that pushing novel COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy is the most significant ethical breach in the history of medicine[vii] [viii].”

In a hearing where the ethical breaches include hiding damage to hearts, particularly in young people who were not at risk from the disease; blood clots; knowingly lying about the injections staying at the injection site when they were designed to cross organ barriers throughout the body; ignoring deaths and adverse events that were closely linked to the injections—including autopsy proof of cause of death being the injections; the censoring of truth and data. And we could add the discrimination against and removal of availability of effective drugs and treatments.

I don’t know how to measure which ethical breach is the worst in the history of medicine, but it’s very likely you could get a top five or ten just from the response to COVID-19. I believe you could summarize it as: A disease that was bad but treatable was made into a major catastrophe by a politicized public health response that was exactly opposite to what would have protected public health.

image found here

While we’re on Dr. Thorp’s testimony, he adds a July 2023 study[ix] by Pfizer reporting adverse events for babies after birth (whose mothers got the “vaccine”):

1.        A 100% increase in low Apgar scores (indicating depressed newborns).

2.        A substantial increase in meconium aspiration syndrome.

3.        An 80% increase in neonatal jaundice.

4.        A 70% increase in congenital malformations.

5.        A 220% increase in atrial septal defects.

6.        A substantial increase in fetal growth restriction.

7.        A 200% increase in congenital nevi.

8.        A 310% increase in congenital anomalies with developmental delays at 6 months of age.

Let’s add the reminder here that the COVID-19 disease did not kill young people. No healthy young children died. Very few had more than typical cold or flu symptoms, which they recovered from without medical intervention. Nor were they known to be spreading the illness to more vulnerable adults. So these adverse outcomes for babies, weighed against the “benefits,” show strong reasons for not vaccinating pregnant women, and thus vaccinating their pre-born children; and indeed show strong reasons for not vaccinating anyone but the most vulnerable (which we might argue against as well).

The dissenting opinions, mainly from Senator Blumenthal and Hawaii Governor Green, claim that we know the vaccines (a term they insist on using) saved millions upon millions of lives. The “study” they cite is actually a blog post by someone who used a mathematical model. It is difficult to show a negative—what would have happened in alternate circumstances. That’s what double-blind placebo studies are designed to do. Nor do these two address why the vaccine would have done more good than the various treatments available—which Dr. McCullough suggests all worked.

What they do talk about is the recent measles outbreak, which started in Samoa in 2019, and has spread to Texas and a couple dozen other states. Dr. Green claimed he held children as they died of measles in Samoa, which was heartbreaking. They were attempting to blame RFK Jr and his organization for talking people out of getting vaccinated in Samoa. This followed an incident in which two children died following getting MMR shots when the nurses (who were prosecuted) used the wrong reagent, thus accidentally poisoning the children. This was at a time—as in the US—when the disease was considered eliminated (different from worldwide eradication). That meant risk of getting the disease was low, and risk of death from the disease was, as always, around 14/1000 cases (it’s less in the US). Considering that there are other risks from vaccines, it seems to me that this was reasonable information to provide to parents. It did result in the lowering of vaccination rates from 75% to around 40%, going into the outbreak. Note that some measles cases also occurred in vaccinated individuals.

What they were trying to do was conflate MMR vaccines with the COVID-19 injections—which were originally touted as necessary to prevent contraction and spread of COVID-19 but which did neither. In other words, they’re willing to lie to you about the efficacy and safety of the mRNA injections in order to maintain confidence in other vaccines. They do not, by the way, touch on the growth from 3 injections (which included MMR) in early childhood to 70+ injections today.

So, getting back to that bombshell about the COVID-19 “vaccines” being on par with abortifacient drugs…

I had been aware of higher than normal miscarriage rates; I had known personally at least one case (who had been glad to take the vaccine, because of her fear; my background opinion, which I didn’t express to her, was that the vaccine caused the miscarriage). The tragedy, as we see it now, is that millions of pregnant women worldwide, gladly anticipating their babies, unknowingly aborted them. I do not blame them; they were manipulated and had no evil intent. I blame those who used them; may God deal with them justly (and possibly more mercifully than I would).

I had been concerned that the vaccine might be causing infertility into the future. That can happen, depending on the damage caused by the spike protein in the individual patient, some of which would exist beyond a single pregnancy. But I’m glad to say the one I knew has since had a successful pregnancy. That concern about the altering of the human genome still looms, however.

I’m going to move into the Revelation 13 beasts talk again. This is, at least, a way to think about what’s happening, metaphorically and/or in reality.

from the Dürer Apocalypse woodcut "The Beast with the Lamb's Horns
and the Beast with Seven Heads," this segment found here

As a refresher, there’s a dragon (evil itself, or Satan) that wields power over two beasts. The first is a beast rising out of the sea—which means it extends to many nations—and it has many heads and crowns, or authorities. Other names are the Worldwide Cabal, the Whore of All the Earth, the Deep State, the Great and Abominable Church (corrupt belief system), or the Anti-Christ (which, in my opinion describes this beast, not a yet-to-be-identified powerful individual). And then there’s the land beast, a false-speaking ram with the roar of a lion. I call it the propaganda beast. It upholds and, through illusion (deception), seems to give substance to the sea beast.

That pandemic must have seemed like such a coup for the dragon and his beasts. So much death. So much fear. So much distrust. So much damage to humanity. Imagine what a delight that must have been for C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape and Wormwood (minor devils in The Screwtape Letters).

Death and injury themselves would have been a goal for these beasts. But a particular goal is to ruin family.

In this pandemic, the beasts were able to close churches and temples (temporarily), close schools (in some cases up to two school years without in-person classes, thus setting back the education of a generation of children), causing irreparable economic destruction, fear and distrust galore (including traumatizing children needlessly), affecting development with those stupid ineffective masks that covered faces and harmed breathing, and now we learn wiped out a partial generation through miscarriage and infant death, and affected major portions of the survivors.

And that was just the pandemic. Every detail of the LGBTQ agenda is designed to lead children away from happy, healthy families and toward infertile debauchery. Again, this is not hatred toward groups of people, for whom I recommend Reintegrative Therapy to deal with whatever trauma caused them to dissociate from their sex; it is the desire to prevent spreading that trauma to vulnerable children.

Those beasts are big and powerful. But we are identifying them, and standing up against them with truth where we can. That is our duty, even though we don’t feel powerful against such foes. But our God is a much mightier God than that dragon and his beasts. If you read to the end of the story in Revelation, you know those puny entities that seem so powerful now will be eradicated like a weak virus subject to disinfection by sunlight.

Hosanna! It means God rescue us. Any time now would be a good time.

---

[i] Lin X, Botros B, Hanna M, Gurzenda E, Manzano De Mejia C, Chavez M, Hanna N, "Transplacental transmission of the COVID-19 vaccine messenger RNA: evidence from placental, maternal and cord blood analyses postvaccination", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2024), doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.022 https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002 9378(24)00063-2/fulltext (Accessed 11/11/2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.022

[ii] Thorp JA, Benavides A, Thorp MM, McDyer DC, Biss KO, Threet JA, McCullough PA. “Are Covid-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim? Part I.” Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. Volume 6, February 8, 2025. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-as-safe-and-effective as-the-medical-industrial-complex-claim-part-i/

[iii] Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, Moro PL. et al. “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid 19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” April 21, 2021, N Engl J Med 2021;384:2273-2282. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM0a2104983 (Accessed 6/29/2024) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983

[iv] Pfizer phase 2/3 clinical trial. “Study NCT04754594 to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 Against Covid-19 in Healthy pregnant Women 18 Years of Age and Older.” Submitted Date: July, 14, 2023 (v21). Study Start date February 16, 2021 and Study Completion date: July 15

[v] Celia Farber. Court-Ordered Pfizer Documents They Tried To Have Sealed For 55 years Show 1223 Deaths, 158,000 Adverse Events in 90 Days post EUA Release. The Most Shocking Document Release Of The Last 100 years. December 5, 2021. https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/court-ordered-pfizer-documents-they  (Accessed 6/25/2024)

[vi] Michelle Maluske. CTV News. 'Data is power': Experts weigh-in on court-ordered release of Pfizer vaccine documents. March 11, 2022. https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/data-is-power-experts weigh-in-on-court-ordered-release-of-pfizer-vaccine-documents-1.5816089 (Accessed 11/11/2024)

[vii] Maggie M Thorp JD. Jim Thorp MD. “Experimental, Untested Genetic Biotechnology Administered in Pregnancy: An Egregious Breach of Bioethics.”  America Out Loud November 12, 2022. 

[viii] Maggie Thorp JD, Jim Thorp MD. “A call for Immediate Moratorium on the use of COVID19 Vaccines in pregnant women.” March 3, 2024. America Out Loud https://www.americaoutloud.news/a-call-for-immediate-moratorium-on-the-use-of-covid-19vaccines-in-pregnant-women/

[ix] July 2023 Pfizer's: “Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial in Pregnant Women, COVID-19 vaccine versus Placebo”

Develop a Taste for Truth

Why do good people believe different things to be true? And, therefore, how do you know what is really true?

Those are age-old questions, still worth asking.

I recently read a book (actually listened to the audio version from the library, so I don’t have access to it for quotes): Collective Illusions, by Todd Rose. The author uses research and examples to show that what we believe, and how we perceive things, has more to do with social pressure than we realize.

book cover image from Amazon

He makes some good points. But I found that every example he uses that wasn’t politically neutral was from the point of view of a leftist/progressive. He was talking about how we censor ourselves to avoid social backlash, which is sometimes real. His example was a single, obscure statement that got backlash from, I guess, a Trump supporter, and that explains why he and so many of his friends feared saying anything about the subject online. It may have had to do with COVID shots; I can’t remember.

But he fails to recognize that there was actual censorship, cancelling, lives ruined for those who disagreed with the party line about such things. I’ve been censored. People I know personally have been censored. Many many online sources I listen to have been censored. “Going against community standards” could mean anything from suggesting ivermectin could be useful to showing footage of J6 with people being welcomed into the capitol where they peacefully walked through and exited without incident; or pointing out that “summer of love” riots, which were not mostly peaceful, were staged and paid for and not organic; or saying that men cannot get pregnant.

In other words, the author of a book encouraging us to recognize where our bias comes from, so we can better understand one another and come to know the truth, is unaware of his social biases and fails to overcome them, even while he tells us he knows what to do about them.

I listened to a podcast last week about how our beliefs come more from gut feelings than from reason and logic. The context was religious faith, as in leaving or coming to faith. But I think the concepts can be extrapolated further to truth in general. The interview is with Dr. Jeffrey Thayne, a psychologist and professor at BYU-Idaho, on the podcast Let’s Get Real with Stephen Jones. 

Thayne refers to a metaphor from a Jonathan Haidt book with an elephant and a rider. The rider is ostensibly in control, sitting up on top. But in reality, the rider goes where the elephant goes; the elephant has the power to obey or ignore the direction of the rider. The rider metaphorically represents the brain, while the elephant represents the gut, or the heart—the feelings of a person. It’s the feelings that have the real power.

Thayne gives some examples; this one was memorable: say he goes to the fridge to get the ingredients for his morning smoothie, but he’s out of berries, peaches, bananas—all the regular things. But he does have some leftover pizza. So he tosses that in the blender and makes himself a delicious breakfast smoothie. And Jones has a visible “gross” reaction: disgust—just as you probably did reading it here. But Thayne says he can give all the reasoning. The ingredients are the same for the pizza whether solid or in the smoothie; and the pizza gets essentially turned into a smoothie in your mouth by the time you swallow it. The nutrients are the same. It’s reasonable. And yet, you’re still going to find it disgusting.

However, there are some things that start out disgusting to you, but with repeated exposure become acceptable, and you even develop a taste for them. Avocadoes. Hot chili. Maybe black coffee (I’m not a coffee drinker, but it appears to me that no one starts out liking it). Smoking (again, never tried it, but secondhand smoke is pretty disgusting). There’s no reason I shouldn’t like honeydew melon, and yet it hasn’t been worth developing a taste for. I suppose, though, that I could develop a taste if I put effort into it.

The same principles might apply to social behavior or moral behavior. This week, as the P Diddy trial is underway, the defense seems to be saying, “Even though you might find his lifestyle disgusting and immoral, what you’re judging him on is whether he broke the law.” I do find his lifestyle disgusting and immoral. But the ostensible reason for the trial was the blackmail and human trafficking, which may or may not be among the racketeering charges. So I fear his defense might work in this specific case.

Testimony from one of the witnesses seems to say she did a lot of things that were disgusting to her, because she wanted something—connection to the famous guy who was telling her he would help her career, or that he loved her if she did whatever pleased him. Some of those disgusting things were so far beyond acceptable that it’s hard to imagine someone—even under threat of being beaten—would give in and do them. Drugs seem to have been useful to make the disgust tolerable. As did a pre-existing willingness to do many immoral acts of a somewhat lesser nature.

Grooming is a methodical process used by pedophiles and human traffickers to get a victim to accept things they wouldn’t have otherwise accepted—until they are captured and enslaved.

In therapy for irrational fears, an effective approach is to desensitize by repeated exposure. Someone with a fear of snakes could start out being willing to see a photo. Then a distant caged snake. Then a caged snake up closer. Then a snake being handled distantly by a handler. Then being closer to the snake and handler. Then getting close enough to touch the handled snake. Then possibly actually touching it. Then a longer touch. Maybe getting all the way to handling the snake itself. But at least getting over the irrational fear of being in the same vicinity. This could take several sessions, or it could be accomplished in a matter of hours.

On some scale, maybe we are all being groomed to accept things we shouldn’t. There are things that we found shocking even a couple of decades ago that seem tamer today. Movie depictions of sex outside of marriage today are a far cry from the separate beds in the old I Love Lucy sitcom of a married couple. We don’t want to be prudish, so we label ourselves tolerant; that’s a social pressure.

There’s the Alexander Pope poem you’ve probably heard:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

― Alexander Pope

I admit that I have become somewhat numb to portrayals of sex outside of marriage in media. When I was young, Dr. Zhivago was shocking to me. I still prefer my entertainment clean, but I find that I accept more than possibly I should (when it’s hinted at, not actually shown), because the characters don’t have the same beliefs as I do. But really, it’s more a matter of lack of options—and more often now than when I was younger, I opt out of entertainment rather than accept it. Maybe that’s a matter of no time for entertainment more than intentionality on my part. So am I vulnerable to accepting too much sin in the world around me?

How long did it take society to go from “marriage is between a man and a woman” to “of course gays should be allowed to marry”? I never got there. Marriage is a particular thing with a specific meaning; it is not physically possible for gay people to be married, by the original, millennia-old definition. The new definition didn’t even exist until this century—and officially here in America for just a decade. And yet I am in a minority today; even holding that opinion is considered bigoted, homophobic, and all the epithets. From my viewpoint, it does not mean that I hate gay people; it means that I understand something differently, based on what I believe God has declared, and I’m not willing to develop a taste for what society says I must.

I don’t know why I am not swayed when so many around me are, even among those who are like-minded in many other ways. I don’t feel special or brave; maybe I’m just stubborn. Or maybe I have sought out reasons that align with my beliefs. One thing I do not do, as it would be fruitless, is to argue about it online. I do post my opinions here, but people who even find my opinion can take it or leave it; I don’t contend and attack.

Stephen Jones, left, with Dr. Jeffrey Thayne,
screenshot from here

Thayne points out that people are pretty much never swayed to think like you by rational arguments online. What sways people is “regular exposure to people who think like you, developing friends with people who think like you.” This could explain why people who exit the Democrat party and come to associate with Republicans find themselves picking up conservative ideas pretty quickly; they surround themselves with people having those ideas, and feel welcomed among them—finding them unlike the stereotype of racist angry people the previous group had portrayed them as.

But there has to be something that triggers the exit from the original group in the first place. Was it having just enough exposure to the other side to develop a taste for it? Or was it a growing distaste for being on a side with ideas and actions that didn’t align with their own?

It’s like being in a dining social club that only enjoys Indian food, and one day you say, “I admit I don’t really like Indian food.” So you go elsewhere and find a taste for Tex-Mex or smoked BBQ, and wonder how you’d let yourself miss that for so long.

OK, so this shows that gut feelings (or heart) move us more than logic and reasoning. And yet, there’s got to be a place in the search for truth for logic and reasoning, right? “Come now, and let us reason together,” as the scriptures tell us [Isaiah 1:18]. Yes. For strengthening a belief you are leaning toward because of your feelings. For aligning your mind with your heart, you could say. The more you do that, the more you’re going to trust your feelings when they come up against opposition.

Here’s one piece of advice Dr. Thayne suggests that I think makes a whole lot of sense: pray that truth and righteousness will be delicious to you, so you’ll recognize and embrace them.

Developing a taste for truth and righteousness might be one of the most valuable spiritual gifts—up there with healing and discernment. I do seek for truth. I do find it delicious, satisfying, when I find it. I pray that I will always be blessed with that gift; I intend to live in a way that makes it likely. For the sake of our world, I pray that everyone develops a taste for truth and righteousness.