If you haven’t read or heard an Ayaan Hirsi Ali lecture, and you want to understand what the Somalians, the Muslim Brotherhood and the democrat party have in common and how they use it against civilized society you have to read this wikipedia page, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society   and watch this video…

you can tell by their applause after his take over speech.

The heads of the Rockefeller apparatchik of the democrat party must have been exploding from coast to coast.

God bless America!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugH-a25ZQm8

is this morning’s message from Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino during his Fox News interview .  Meanwhile, the self-deceiving Marxist new world order supporters reject any part of a reality their fairy tale encapsulated minds perceive as a threat to their programs born of mind control  they willingly embrace as their ‘civil right’.

Unfortunately for the rest of US their civil rights are based on Godless humanist arguments that can change  quicker than a mullah’s spiritual ardor.

Today’s civil rights,  accepted as legal rights, are designed to be focused on equality for those people the democratic party models as victims of the old world order of things; in other words, the sinners who never found peace with God because they would never seek it through repudiation of sin.

However, by embracing Humanist beliefs, those globalist minded folks meeting at Davos have targeted mankind’s broad recognition and acceptance of God’s role as Creator of all life on earth.  The oligarchs denial of Him as Creator and their insistent belief in the presumptive hypothesis of the  evolutionary based process with science as their intended means of control over those who survive their plans is clearly a strong indicator of the evil we have read about throughout our lives as an expanding power that will  eventually be confronting us.

Because of that, while it may not be clearly understood by most  Americans, an integral element of their plan is their intended  replacement of our Constitution with civil rights in the new order of things; don’t believe any wavering announcements of globalist defeatism from them, either. Their patron invented misinformation.

are increasing.

and still the attitude remains:

Freedom, freedom, we will not obey…

from Iran is not quite like our controlled media sees it; msm might know it, they just don’t like to show it

Victory for the Iranian people is complete!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gk8QVRAjOc

European government leaders (minus Britain’s) are recognizing the legitimacy of the Iranian victory and President Trump is looking forward to helping with the clean up.

Iranian people’s victory song #1!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMMnIDXVAtk

Iranian Military And Police DEFECT To Revolution – Crown Prince Gives Order To Army

Meanwhile, in an effort to forestall what appears to be an attempted  bizarre cultural exchange with newly cleansed Iran,   Minnesota Dems expressed their willingness to accept the Mullahs expurgated  spiritual evil, Minnesota Republican   State Rep.  Marion Rarick warns:

MINNESOTA WHISTLEBLOWERS WARNED TO STAY SILENT: “YOU’LL LOSE YOUR JOB, YOUR HOME, & THEY’LL TRACK YOUR KIDS”

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2009188335873302712  

Not a good tactic if she means to help clean out Minnesota. Her advice sounds like she took Mamdami’s intent to ‘replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism’ to heart. but that ain’t how freedom works or why the First Amendment is the first amendment.

Hasn’t Madam Rarick  ever heard the phrase ‘Freedom’s never free’?

oft times requires re-coupling

Consider it a preface to the following.

A never to be forgotten example of medical sales rhetoric was the mRNA vaccine scam. Many people today consider it the medical trust buster while medical professionals claimed bafflement at the push back; one might think scientists, allegedly curious by nature, would consider push back reason enough to do their own research on the subject instead of relying on their committed big money controllers from whom most  still took the money.

From the 1998 American Journal of Public Health

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/epdf/10.2105/AJPH.89.2.171

Physicians’ responses to questions about contraindications for immunization showed a general misunderstanding of the conditions under which it is appropriate to immunize children.Many of the physicians believed a variety of mild illnesses to be contraindications, even though they are not considered contraindications according to the Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices set forth by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee.’8 For example, 47% of the physicians believed that otitis media was a contraindication, 55% believed this of bronchitis, and 53% believed it of temperatures above normal but below101.5°F. This is particularly striking given that in this study, sick visits accounted for the majority of all visits (73.8% at baseline).

As far back as 1998 the pharmaceutical provider’s sales argument superseded the physicians instinctive concern for the well being of the patient. No small wonder if you know about the historical skeleton key Congress provided the pharmaceutical manufacturers in 1986.

Part B: Additional Remedies – Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages.

Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings. Provides that a manufacturer may be held liable where: (1) such manufacturer engaged in the fraudulent or intentional withholding of information; or (2) such manufacturer failed to exercise due care. Permits punitive damages in such civil actions under certain circumstances.

Almost forty years later that trickle down source of wealth finds another inlet to the control room and without a whimper of forethought from the populace most medical services businesses were signing up  while the medical marxists,  puerile progeny of marxist/communist Jacobi’s revolutionary fervor resumed their march, engaging US with the latest advance in what they must consider, refined warfare , Weaponized Medicine, devised by the Architects of Reset and targeting those who escaped abortion from the middle of an anonymous organization of organizations.

The Pediatric Policy Council (PPC) joins the child health advocacy efforts of the American Pediatric Society, the Society for Pediatric Research, the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, and the Academic Pediatric Association to impact legislation.

Consider the horse as the modern model of marxist leadership https://www.eatsleeprides.org/news/from-herd-to-humanity-shared-leadership-in-a-divided-world   Is it becoming clear yet that they are merely sycophants doing the bidding of the oligarchs? Including aborting humanities future?

                                                                 ******

When the CDC recently announced an attempt to change the children’s vaccination schedule, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/american-academy-of-pediatrics-splits-with-cdc-releases-its-own-immunization-schedule  announced it’s own schedule:

On Tuesday August 19, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released its updated immunization schedule, breaking with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the first time in 30 years.

The group’s recommendations explicitly call for COVID-19 vaccination of children ages 6 months to 23 months and risk-based vaccination for older children — guidance that directly contrasts with federal policy under Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The American Academy of Pediatrics friends

and associates in the Federation of Pediatric Organizations

https://www.academicpeds.org/publications-resources/advocacy/pediatric-policy-council-connection-update/

The Pediatric Policy Council (PPC) was created to “speak with one voice” and combine the legislative advocacy efforts of the American Pediatric Society, the Society for Pediatric Research, the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
During the Pediatric Academic Societies’ annual meeting, the PPC sponsors an early morning legislative symposium on a current research topic of interest to the pediatric academic community.

speak with one voice is just another example of typical marxist BS. I’ll leave it to the reader to investigate the political leanings of their affiliates.

https://www.aps1888.org/about/

The American Pediatric Society was founded during the last part of the nineteenth century, at a time when scientific medicine was only just emerging from the shadows of empiricism and poly-therapy.

The major impetus for the organization of the APS came from Job Lewis Smith of New York who saw the need for a forum for the discussion of pediatric issues and clinical problems. Smith was responsible for convening a small meeting of physicians who had attended the Pediatric Section of the Ninth International Medical Congress, held in Washington, DC on September 7-9, 1887. Smith was Chairman of the Section and invited a “few members” to meet after the adjournment with the express purpose of setting into motion activities to establish the American Pediatric Society. Among those attending were Smith, W.D. Booker of Baltimore, I.N. Love of St. Louis, S. C. Busey of Washington and W.P. Watson of Jersey City. Smith was elected temporary chairman, and Booker temporary secretary of the proposed society. A decision was made that the new society would be independent and avoid entangling alliances, especially with the AMA.

Not a mention of their first president, Abraham Jacobi; it looks like they let the AMA do the soft soaping cover for them at https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/advocacy-origin-pediatrics/2025-09

…Born in Prussia (now Germany) in 1831, Jacobi fled to America from his home country in 1853, after being imprisoned for his participation in the revolutions of 1848.⁵

Once established in America, he quickly became a leader in developing the field of pediatrics. He was the first to create a free pediatric clinic in the United States… they left out this part: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1045187003000554

Get more of the story at https://bucksafa11.org/2025/09/30/leopards-and-socialists-never-change-their-spots/ then ask yourself if you really want to trust your children to a member of an organization whose idea of ethics embraces disinformation in their version of rhetoric of control.

https://www.societyforpediatricresearch.org/advocacy/

The Pediatric Policy Council (PPC) has worked on Capitol Hill since 1984 and is the combined legislative advocacy efforts of the Society for Pediatric Research, American Pediatric Society, Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, and Academic Pediatric Association.

The PPC meets annually and sponsors an annual pediatric policy scholarly session at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting.

The PPC is a member of the Committee on Federal Government Affairs, American Academy of Pediatrics (COFGA).

Additional information and resource materials on issues related to child health are available from the Washington Coordinator for the societies, Matthew Mariani, Director, Federal Advocacy, American Academy of Pediatrics.

Before you go there, understanding the rhetoric of control could be helpful and a few pages from The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/pub/Druckman%20and%20Lupia%20Using%20Frames%20to%20Make%20Scientific%20Communication%20Effective.pdf might be just the place to start.

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter discusses ways in which frames can be used to facilitate effective scientific communication—particularly we explore the impact of frames with regard to attention limitations, political polarization, and the politicization of science. We also highlight unanswered questions and challenges.The main lesson of this chapter is that there are certain conditions under which choosing particular frames yields more effective communication. While understanding these conditions does not guarantee success, it can help science communicators avoid common mistakes…

For scientists who seek to convey insights gleaned from studies of complex phenomena, the reality of limited attentive capacity forces them to make choices about how to convey what they know. Scientists often struggle to make these choices effectively. Their struggle arises from the fact that many scientific phenomena have many describable attributes.Since prospective learners cannot pay attention to all extant facts about complex phenomena, science communicators must make choices about what parts of their subject to emphasize.

This is not the only challenge facing science communicators. The scientific process is itself a complex phenomenon. Consider, for example, how a researcher examines climate change. When studying climate change, a researcher chooses which attributes of climate will be the focus of the research. With this focus in mind, a researcher chooses where, when, and how to gather evidence. A researcher also chooses what metrics to use to characterize observations. For example, when measuring ocean temperatures, a researcher can offer a continuous metric or a discrete metric. The metric can characterize very small parts of an ocean or very large parts. With measures in hand, a researcher then chooses how to analyze the observations. In many cases, researchers choose a particular statistical model—a choice that includes not only what potential explanatory variables to include or exclude but also whether to use the log or square root of a particular value. Attempts to understand the full meaning of a scientific finding can depend on knowledge of how the finding was produced.. .

Another example from more than a decade ago: https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/article/3253/galley/112055/view/

The rhetoric of science is so far a small but proud scholarly field that seeks simultaneously to contribute to rhetorical studies and to secure a place for rhetoric in the conversation of–to use a broad and not exclusively owned term–science studies. We want to be mindful of both of those fronts. The approach of rhetorical studies to argumentation, including scientific argumentation, recognizes that, no matter how valid their reasoning or how strong their evidence, speakers must command authority with audiences and that audiences bring a lot of baggage with them to the context-dependent rhetorical situations in which they encounter rhetorical activity. Accordingly, rhetoricians of science take seriously the role of rhetorical choices, including the use of tropes and figures, narrative accounts, genre expectations, and terministic framing to shape conversations about science…

Considered rhetorically, invention in science, as in other forms of inquiry, can’t be thought of in isolation from justification at all; rather, the two comprise at most dialectical poles in the dynamics of inquiry. Invention is a shared social practice, not the private, purely psychological process to which philosophers invidiously confined it in order to put the accent instead on logical justification. When one invents, it is with an eye toward how the invented argument, framing, or interpretation might hold up under the scrutiny of an audience. And sometimes that audience, including the internalized audience that any well-socialized inquiry leans upon, sends the inquirer back to the drawing board. Indeed, the critical audience (e.g., another scientist or an external critic) might not just challenge an explicit argument but also, for example, challenge the use of a dominant metaphor, which then puts it within the space of investigation and productive inquiry. While we understand that a metaphor is never precisely true or false, a metaphor that is apt for a particular phenomenon under inquiry can open whole new vistas, while a bad one can really gum up the works. So metaphors too can be, and often are, challenged and tested…

That’s from 2013. These days, 2025, broadcasted accusations of mis- and or dis-information are the back up tools of politically controlled scientific (or vice versa) persuasion.

From https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/terministic-screens#_

Terministic screens consist of the words we use to represent reality, and as selections from among many conceptual vocabularies, they can lead to different conclusions as to what reality actually is.

That article is based on the Kenneth Burke 1965 article “Terministic Screens”.

This last link on the subject is a segue into a connected topic.

https://selections.rockefeller.edu/the-myth-of-apolitical-science/