Category: Uncategorized

Even though I have not done this before, I felt that doing a piece on “Audrey’s Children” was appropriate for a Sunday. “Audrey’s Children” is a bioptic about British-born chief of pediatric oncology, Dr. Audrey Evans, who recently passed in 2022, at the age of 97.

From Epoch Bright:
In 1969, Dr. Evans joins the world-renowned Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, pioneering treatment for neuroblastoma. This is a lethal form of cancer that killed 90 percent of patients, many of whom were young children, before her revolutionary treatment advancements.
Dr. Evans was also one of the founders of the Ronald McDonald House, the mission of which is to support and provide housing and resources for families while their sick child receives treatment.

Dr. Evans accomplished an incredible amount during her lifetime, and “Audrey’s Children” attempts to cover all areas.
“Audrey’s Children” attempts to cram in all of Dr. Evans’s formidable achievements like Santa packing presents for a three-generational New England clan on Christmas Eve. There’s her research, conducted old school, in basements, on scribbled index cards taped to cinder-block walls. There’s her wonderful bedside manner with her young patients. There’s the fact that she’s the pediatric oncology version of the Unsinkable Molly Brown—she displays tireless passion and tremendous, discerning intelligence.

While not a stellar biopic, “Audrey’s Children” is sure to inspire good deeds in medical profession aspirants and is definitely worth a watch for everyone.
4/6/25

I just came upon something that suggests that the FBI is diverting resources to where they are needed most. So instead of hassling silent abortion protestors and those who spoke up at school board meetings, the FBI will now shift focus where the unsolved crimes are.
From Elkhorn Media Group:
The U.S. Justice Department announced yesterday it will “surge FBI assets across the country to address unresolved violent crimes in Indian Country, including crimes relating to missing and murdered indigenous persons.”
The FBI will send 60 assets, rotating in 90-day temporary assignments over a six month period for Operation Not Forgotten. In addition to Portland and Seattle, the assets will be deployed to field offices in Albuquerque, Denver, Mississippi, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City. They will partner with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal law enforcement agencies across those jurisdictions.

At the beginning of the fiscal year 2025, the FBI’s Indian Country program had approximately 4,300 open investigations including over 900 death investigations, 1,000 child abuse investigations, and more than 500 domestic violence and adult sexual abuse investigations.

We are all familiar with the saying: “Robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is,” and so it makes sense to send the FBI to places where the unsolved crimes are, and thus Operation Not Forgotten.
4/5/25

We are all probably aware that the prior administration believed in open borders … but that’s not all! We were not aware of the extent to which the prior administration was doing way more than just letting supposed refugees into the U.S.
The following is from a whistle-blower who lets us know what was really happening with the refugee resettlement program.
Initially these “refugees” were given Social Security Numbers. But that’s not all!
Next these “refugees” were interviewed to see if they perhaps had any hint of chronic medical problems. No exam. No documentation. If these “refugees” stated that they did have some chronic health issue, then they could qualify for long term social security disability, which would almost guarantee benefits for life.
But that’s not all!
The next unbelievable step in the process was to process them for a U.S. passport.
But that’s not all!
If these states to which these “refugees” were sent objected to taking any more, then they could federal government then bypassed these states such that they were then subsequently totally out of the loop, and other “charitable” organizations, such as Catholic charities were put in charge.

Even though I was shocked when I read about these unbelievable above noted tactics, my guess is “that’s not all!”
4/4/25

How many times have I disagreed with the present Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson? The answer is very few, but I do disagree with his stance on the so-called “Luna amendment.”
For those not aware of what I am referring to …
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduces a bill to allow new mothers in Congress to vote, arguing it’s discriminatory to prevent them from representing their constituents.

Speaker Johnson was opposed to this and was po-ed when eight Republicans sided with Rep Luna. To my way of thinking this was a boneheaded stance by Speaker Johnson.
First off, it appears sexist to the casual observer as only females can have babies.
Second, those pregnant soon to be mothers who are also Reps obviously did not get an abortion. Why punish them for carrying their fetus to term?
Third, in the future it could be that the House will be equally divided and by not allowing new mothers to vote by proxy, it would encourage a female Rep on either side to have an abortion rather than having her party lose by one vote. Come on Speaker Johnson, think about it!
Lastly … and I have no inside info on whether or not Rep. Luna is considering having another child. She presently has one child and at only thirty-five years old, could she be considering having another? Certainly, Speaker Johnson should have thought about this possibility as Anna Paula Luna is a sure Republican vote and is 100% behind President Trump.
4/3/25

When is it okay for district judges to issue universal injunctions?
I am not a lawyer, but to me the answer would be found in the Constitution or from rulings by the Supreme Court.
Senator John Kennedy (R, Louisiana)is one of my favorites and on 3/31/25 while questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.

From PJ Media:
Kennedy asked, “What’s the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?”
“I’m not aware of a statutory basis, Senator,” Shumate admitted.
“There is no statutory basis, is there?” Kennedy reiterated.
“No, Senator,” Shumate confirmed.

Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.
“Can you name me that case?” he asked.
“I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate responded.
“There isn’t one, is there?” Kennedy pressed.
“I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate repeated.

Kennedy then laid out the fundamental issue: “You have a plaintiff and a defendant, and the plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal court. The judge has jurisdiction over those parties. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else outside of that courtroom?”
“Uh, it shouldn’t be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time,” Shumate admitted.

“I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren’t in court, you had to file a class action,” Kennedy countered.
“That’s correct, Senator,” Shumate agreed.
Kennedy pointed out that instead of filing class-action suits, plaintiffs often seek universal injunctions, which have no legal foundation. 

“The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not?” Kennedy asked.
“Yes,” Shumate affirmed.
In his closing remarks, Kennedy highlighted the constitutional issue at hand: “Tell me the basis for universal injunction in Article III. Where does it mention universal injunction?”
“It does not, Senator,” Shumate said. “It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case.”
Kennedy concluded, “So Congress could act and say, ‘Look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can’t impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action.’ That’s why God created class actions, isn’t it?”
“Yes, Senator,” Shumate agreed.

So there it is! All laid out quite nicely by Senator Kennedy.
Universal injunctions have no statutory basis, no affirmation by the Supreme Court, and have been used as a weapon against President Trump with no apparent legal basis.
Why is the Supreme Court sitting on their hands?
4/2/25

The following certainly seems to be a pattern. First in San Francisco and now in Seattle.
From Hot Air:
“Progressive educators attack tracking and advanced math courses on the grounds that equity demands everyone be in the same classroom. Somehow this was supposed to improve things for the mostly black and Hispanic students who were falling behind without doing any harm to the mostly white and Asian kids who had previously been in the advanced classes.

Eventually, San Francisco figured out that it didn’t work. Apart from making life much harder for the advanced kids, some of whom had to take a year of math in summer school to keep up with their college-bound peers in other cities, getting rid of Middle School algebra did nothing for the students on the other end of the achievement gap. The city eventually reversed course once the failure of de-tracking became undeniable.

In Seattle many parents were not happy when certain classes were cancelled in the guise of DEI.
After some back and forth, the district’s chief of equity, partnerships, and engagement, Keisha Scarlett wrote, ‘I also fundamentally believe that we don’t advance racial equity as a measure toward racial and education justice through a focus on increasing access and inclusion. These are band-aids to camouflage institutional racism.’”

First of all what is a “chief of equity, partnerships, and engagement” other than a poppycock spewer?
Anyone with a frontal lobe could explain to Keisha Scarlett that this would not work. The lower end students would not benefit, and many of the higher end students would transfer to private schools that offered the advanced classes that are necessary to compete for college admissions.

Again from Hot Air:
“All of this was predictable and was in fact predicted by parents who warned the school system in advance that it was a bad idea to tear down the current system without coming up with a solid replacement and putting that in place first. The city didn’t listen (just as it didn’t when it jumped on the “defund the police” bandwagon” in 2020).
Finally, it seems the city is coming around but only after losing a bunch of its best students and taking advanced classes away from many more. This was always a terrible idea. The fact that DEI made it seem not just positive but necessary should be cause for some much needed reflection on the value of DEI in education.”
4/1/25

I’m sure that many of you have already heard my COVID booster story. (I got my first COVID infection fifteen days after my first and only COVID booster). This story is now worth revisiting because of a recent article published in the Journal of Infection titled, “Post-vaccination IgG4 and IgG2 class switch associates with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections.”
After reading about this study in C&C, I went to the March 18, 2025 study itself. Basically what it said was that after the third COVID shot, there was a higher likelihood of getting COVID. This increased likelihood was due to an increase of Ig2 and Ig4 subclasses of antibodies after the third COVID shot. These types of antibodies are not nearly as efficient at preventing COVID, and it appears that the opposite occurs. Even more concerning was that this effect lasted for a long time. (After my one and only booster, I got COVID fifteen days later. However, in addition I got Covid twice more in the following years, whereas before my booster, I did not have COVID! … serendipity? … or perhaps the booster was a “gift that just kept on giving.”
3/31/25

Those who have grown up in the U.S. have been drinking fluoridated water for quite some time. For as long as I can remember fluoridation of my drinking water has been a fait- accompli. I haven’t thought much about it until just recently when questions concerning the safety of automatic fluoridation of water has come up.
The standard line has been:
“Community water fluoridation is a practical, cost-effective, and equitable way for communities to improve oral health regardless of age, education, or income by preventing cavities. This results in less mouth pain, fewer fillings or teeth pulled, and fewer missed days of work and school,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Now let’s be clear, I am not doubting the effectiveness of water fluoridation as is pointed out in the above CDC statement.

However the issue is not about its effectiveness, but rather about the possible neurotoxic side-effects of such.
Note that this has nothing to do with the opinion of RFKJr.

A landmark ruling in September that directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the “unreasonable” risk fluoride in drinking water poses to lowering IQ in children has become a tipping point. The decision has motivated large numbers of local and state governments to ban fluoride in their water supplies.

Utah is set to be the first state to ban fluoride in drinking water. At the same time, at least 50 communities nationwide have removed fluoride from water—representing about 4.5 million people—according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Florida is considering legislation to prevent local governments from adding it to water supplies, and several states are considering reversals of fluoridation mandates.
On the legal front, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco issued an 80-page ruling in September, which stated “the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger a regulatory response by the EPA.”
All of my kids and grandkids have been raised with the ubiquitous fluoridation of their drinking water, and as best I am aware there has been no adverse consequences, and I have passively gone along with the opinion of those who know best … “don’t worry, it’s quite safe.”
My children and my grandchildren are not in the potential adverse target group as the neurotoxic effects of fluoride are more prevalent in formula-fed infants, African Americans, and undernourished people.
At present I am keeping an open mind, at present am not agreeing 100% with “don’t worry, it’s quite safe.”
3/29/25

A while back I wrote about what one needs to vote in Mexico.
First, the background:
In 2016 I was trying to learn Spanish, and was in the process of taking some “learn to speak Spanish” classes. One of these classes was being taught by an Hispanic woman who lived in Tijuana, and commuted to San Diego. Since these 2016 U.S. presidential election was approaching the teacher passed around the card that she needed in order to vote in Mexico. This laminated card had both her picture and her thumb-print on it. She emphasized that the penalty for fraudulent voting in Mexico was quite severe, and thus very very few ever tried to cast an illegal ballot.
This morning while drinking from a coffee cup that says, “You know that I won, Joe” … referring to the 2020 presidential election, I read the latest Trump executive order of 3/25/25, titled,
PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
FYI, this executive order is quite long, detailed, and obviously well thought out. One part which caught my attention was what occurs in other countries.
Section 1.  Purpose and Policy:
“ … India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the United States largely relies on self-attestation for citizenship.  In tabulating votes, Germany and Canada require use of paper ballots, counted in public by local officials, which substantially reduces the number of disputes as compared to the American patchwork of voting methods that can lead to basic chain-of-custody problems.  Further, countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person and do not count late-arriving votes regardless of the date of postmark.”
All of these above checks on voting seem to be common sense, as is what goes on in Mexico with their laminated voting I.D. cards.
I’m betting that this particular executive order will still be in place until a Democrat is elected to be the president. Therefore, for the 2028 presidential election, it is likely that fraudulent voting will be minimized, and I will not need another “you know I won” coffee cup!
3/28/25

There are some things that we all know are true. One of those things is the existence of unintended consequences.
If person A orders “xyz,” and there are unintended consequences because xyz occurred just as A intended, is A responsible for these unintended consequences?
For example, if the mayor of Boston, Michelle Wu, orders that illegals already in jail will not be held so that ICE can take them into custody, is she then responsible for any unintended consequences that subsequently may occur?
If the now released illegal then commits another crime after being allowed back on the street, is Michelle Wu responsible. If a child gets raped or someone gets attacked or killed by that just released illegal, who should have been in the custody of ICE, is Michelle Wu responsible?
If after being released because of Michelle Wu’s dictate, that same illegal wounds or kills an ICE officer who is attempting to capture him/her, is Michelle Wu responsible?
In the two examples my answer is, “undoubtedly, yes!”
However, these two situations are not exactly unforeseen because killers have a proclivity to kill and rapists have a tendency to rape again.
However, I just listened to Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, on a Bill O’Reilly podcast. He talked about the most common unforeseen consequence of allowing these criminals back into society. When they are released they typically go back to their familiar surroundings and congregate with their friends and acquaintances, a lot of whom are also likely to be illegal. When ICE, etc come to get the recently released illegal, these friends and acquaintances are often caught up in the sweep, even though they were not the prime focuses of attention. Since these innocent bystanders are often also illegal, they will also be arrested, taken into custody, and eventually deported. This truly qualifies as an unintended consequence of Michelle Wu’s order to not turnover these illegal jailed criminals to ICE. Although this was not the mayor’s intent, she should be held responsible when these “in the wrong place, at the wrong time” individuals are sent back to wherever they originally came from.
Unintended does not not mean unforeseen!
3/27/25