Search This Blog

Friday, January 13, 2023

The Vaccine is Safe and Effective? Nothing to See Here!

And the sudden deaths go on.  But it's all just a coincidence dontcha know? And any scientist who does the research and says different is a quack who needs to lose his license and be sent to the guillotine.

Check out this article:

Skyrocketing Myocarditis after j@b.

It ain't rocket science, folks. Some of the excess deaths may be due to the impact of the lockdowns because people delayed treatment for cancer, etc. But can that really explain all the folks dropping dead during sporting events? Kids collapsing during basketball games or while doing normal exercises? The powers that be demand you dismiss your skepticism. They still insist the j@b is "safe and effective" and don't you dare question the demand that you get the 4th or 5th or 15th booster. It's time for some serious evaluations because there are definite indications that the unusual deaths have one thing in common. know what it is.


Cynthia said...
Elvis’ daughter dead

rohrbachs said...

Trump's vaccine. Once his cult accepts this, minds will be opened to understand the harms of the injection itself.

Anonymous said...

I have to post anonymous this time. The company I work for was acquired recently by another company. I haven’t been caught yet but the policy of this new company is for all US employees to be jabbed. This mandate does not apply to employees in the EU. I wonder if the EU has medical privacy laws that forbid employees having to show jab status? Once upon a time, Americans had HIPPA laws but that I guess went out the window with the other rules of law in 2020.

Dan Schnittker said...

Re: Trump's vaccine. I agree. It's a huge tragedy (in the classic sense too). Trump had to know by mid 2020 that the covid tyranny was being pushed by his deep state enemies. He blinked, when he should have stood up. The buck stops with him. We are still waiting for a full explanation from those around him, or in contact with him, who warned him, like Drs. Atlas, Breggin, Alexander Zelenko (RIP), and probably others. Dr Paul Alexander has a book out about it, but I haven't read it. His podcasts are lively, but not illuminating on this subject. Trump has made some recent noises which look like the beginning of an attempt to wiggle out of his large share of responsibility for this mess. Very unpresidential.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Trump's vaccine. Once his cult accepts this, minds will be opened to understand the harms of the injection itself." 13 JAN 23

"In modern English, cult is usually a pejorative term for a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals," Wiki

The belief's held by Trump's cult are anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-Deep State and pro-Christian. . Said beliefs clash with the values of the Boss Class.

Happy New Year.

Richard W Comerford

rohrbachs said...

President warp speed himself has rape exceptions, has flooded the swamp with his covid policies, harming both health and economy, styles self as the most gay friendly president ever and... The list goes on. I cannot account for the cult attachment to him, other than what seems like another type of mass formation psychosis.

rohrbachs said...

And as for Dobbs: We have actually been set back by roe reversal. States simply can't decide what is an inalienable right. Therefore people now view it as something that is alienable!

We must hold out for abolition and this will not come by marching one day a year. We must be in every face every day for a human life amendment. We did it against slavery and can do it again against abortion.

Anonymous said...

The word "cult" is a pejorative. In 2016 and 2020 Americans had a clear choice between voting for the culture of life or for the culture of death. Remarkably in our anti-religious age, many Americans voted for life. These Americans should be publicly praised for their courage. Instead they are publicly held in contempt. Shamed. Humiliated. Public shaming is a Marxist, in particular a Maoist, tactic. May God bless and protect the pro-life voters.

Happy New Year

Richard W Comerford

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...


As someone who has spent most of my adult life trying to save babies from abortion, I'm baffled by your criticism of Dobbs. Tens of thousands of babies have been saved in states that are banning or strictly limiting abortion. No, it isn't the perfect solution -- we need a personhood amendment. But those babies who have been saved will one day publicly praise Dobbs and the Supreme Court justices who saved their lives. Even if Dobbs saved only one life, it would be a great decision and all heaven rejoices.

Elizanna said...

I agree with Rohrbachs. Dobbs has put us right back where we were pre-1973. The fight starts all over again! SCOTUS could have ruled that a "fetus" (how I loathe that term) is a person with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and outright banned the murdering of unborn babies. Instead they took the easy way out, covering their own butts, and turned it all back to the states (AGAIN!) giving states like mine (NY - yuck!) the opportunity to capitalize on the issue and make it as bad as it can possibly be with legal abortion right to birth, and probably beyond that if Gov. Hochul gets her way. She now wants to make NY an "abortion tourism" spot with NY taxpayers footing the bill. So, yeah, Dobbs just re-ignited the entire issue. It is a defeatist attitude to say "if Dobbs saved only one life..." We must fight for complete abolition. How would the slaves have felt if "only one" had been freed?

rohrbachs said...

We are in exactly the same position as antebellum when states got to decide about slavery. Yet this was miserable for those in the slave states and it was spitting on the declaration for any state to presume to decide what is an inalienable right. No doubt the states rights argument delayed abolition for most slaves, as it is delaying abolition of abortion for many babies.

States rights is the briar patch the feminists want to be thrown into, because they foresee the potency of "created equal" to abolish abortion. If they can extinguish that argument by erasing "inalienable", so much the better in their mind.

Face it president warp speed was a democrat plant whose rape exceptions , fauci platforming, rolling helicopter money out to democrat! Governors to lockdown, quack emergency declaring, "early voting" pumping,,"it will be wild!" J6 invite, were nauseating tells, and Rand Paul's solution of life at conception amendment is much to be preferred and should have been prioritized by "the most gay friendly (oops. prolife!) President ever".
Democrats used their reality actor goon to dress in gopface and make conservatives more comfortable to lockdown.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Texas Abortions Drop 99% After Roe Overturned, Thousands of Babies Saved From Abortion

Have you ever sidewalk counseled, Rohrbachs? How about you, Elizanna? Of course we should fight for complete abolition. At the same time we need to offer alternatives and help women considering abortion.

In the meantime, we should rejoice at whatever steps save babies lives. The states were winning before Roe. New York's legislature overturned its liberal law, but Rockefeller vetoed the bill. We now have the opportunity to put pressure on the abortion movement. Limiting access to abortion saves lives.

rohrbachs said...

Nobody is saying anything against sidewalk counseling here. But in the political realm, steady focus on abolition, not incrementalism, is a must. For one thing, many of of wedlock pregnancies would be avoided in the first place by abstinence as they were before abortion was legal. Young men would not feel free to serially fornicate, if abortion was illegal. Rape would be much diminished, as men would know they could be tracked by DNA testing and garnished for life if abortion was off the table.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I agree with your points, Rohrbach, but they can also be made for states legally protecting the unborn. Before Roe, the pro-life movement was working toward a personhood amendment (stifled by the bishops when McHugh was running their pro-life office). At the same time, pro-lifers were taking back lost grounds in pro-abortion states. I simply disagree that there is one answer. States are protecting the babies and are, in your words, "diminishing" abortions by large numbers. It's not "either/or" but "both/and." As for DNA testing, that is already happening and I think your statement about rape is inaccurate. As our society becomes more violent, rape and murder will increase regardless of the laws whether state or federal. But frankly I'm disturbed by your dismissing the babies being saved by Roe's downfall as if their lives don't matter. They matter to me as a mother and grandmother. And I praise God for the Supreme Court who ended Roe.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann:

Re: "Face it president warp speed was a democrat plant whose rape exceptions" at January 16, 2023 at 1:11 PM. Vaccine is safe.

The Maoist tactic of the public shaming of anti-abortion voters is designed to produce confusion and despair within the pro-life ranks. Please note that in this tactic there is no call to place our hope in Christ. No plea for prayers and fasting. No urging to shun sin and amend our lives. And all without gratitude to Almighty God for victories won and evils avoided.

Instead pro-life voters are introduced to bitter, partisan, secular politics, often riddled with fantasy; and within which only one path is permissible to be trod.

Our hope is in Christ and in Christ alone.

Happy New Year.

Richard W Comerford

rohrbachs said...

DNA testing is not happening on the babies that are aborted. That's the whole point!

If anyone is being mao'd here, it is myself. My criticism is of President warp speed, and of his briar-patch solution of Dobbs, which has the paradoxical effect of stripping "inalienable right" from our arsenal.

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist.

Anonymous said...

Re: "William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist." January 17, 2023 at 8:06 AM under Vaccine

Garrison was a raving anti-Semite. He was not a Christian. But a spiritualist. As such he did not deign to publicly pray to Almighty God to end slavery. He was also a warmonger. Garrison refused to follow the British example and simply purchase the freedom of southern slaves. Instead he insisted on war which produced an ocean of blood and created a post war serf class of small black farmers. Garrison ignored the plight of poor Catholic migrants who lived in his city. Garrison was incredibly arrogant and also frequently resorted to public shaming.

Happy New Year.

Richard W Comerford

rohrbachs said...

If Garrison was an antisemite, it is the first I've heard, though now I've even heard that Ulysses Grant was an antisemite. There are many baseless claims of antisemitism today. Even so, then Garrison was a broken clock.

If he was "not a Christian", then the same argument could be applied against following President warp speed. So often we have been asked to pray for Trump when awkward things burble up about his past...he's an "unfinished work". Indeed.

Garrison/ Lincoln was not the warmonger...this was the confederacy! Lincoln argued that the war must continue "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword". But the war was started by the illegal secession of the South, intent on the permanent continuation of the slave regime (see Cornerstone speech of the confederacy for proof on this "permanent" intention). Some argue that we began our descent to totalitarian with Lincoln. But Lincoln was not the first totalitarian...that was the slave plantations, the slave patrols that kept slaves in their place, and the state laws that blocked manumission!

I am not familiar with the Catholic migrant situation and Garrison, though I know there was an unfortunate distance between Protestants and Catholics antebellum. Witness the Catholic draft riots in New York. But there was also the bad example given by bishops who would not denounce slavery. Arguably, one could even trace this reticence back to Nicholas V and his "Dum Diversas" greenlighting of perpetual servitude for African pagans.

The "simple purchase of freedom" for the slaves would have been more difficult than in Britain because the American South was where the British banksters shifted their money, in the form of slave mortgages, when they couldn't have slaves themselves. Who knows how high the confederate ransom would have demanded. And the British banksters arguably continued their leveraging of black white conflict by backdoor promotion of segregation in the post war South.

Public shaming was indeed what was called for about slavery and is called for about abortion. Another Garrison quote: “The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead.”

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...


You put the accuracy of everything you say in question when you claim that secession was illegal. Three of the states explicitly included secession in their ratification of the Constitution. The colonies themselves seceded from England.

Lincoln obviously believed in secession because he allowed the secession of West Virginia from the state of Virginia making it clear that he also rejected the sovereign rights of the states. He was a federalist tyrant through and through.

There's a good article on the right to secession if you care to look at it.

Here's a paragraph that explicitly discusses secession.

"Three of the original thirteen states were particularly skeptical of the government that the newly-drafted Constitution created and so they ratified it only conditionally. These three states were Virginia and New York, the great powerhouses of the New World, and Rhode Island (tiny, but very liberty-minded). In their ratification documents, adopted at their Ratification Conventions, they specifically and carefully reserved the right of secession. These are referred to as the “Resumption Clauses” or “Resumptive Clauses,” and they are exceedingly important to understand this topic. I attached Virginia’s ratification document at the end of this article. You will see that Virginia conditioned her ratification on several things, including the Right to Secede and on the addition of a Bill of Rights (for which she made a number of suggestions)."

This is the last of your comments on this off-topic issue for this post. Start your own blog if you want to engage in an interminable debate on the righteous North vs. the evil South.