Thank you an excellent analysis...I was raised as a classical liberal, which is now considered conservative or libertarian. My grandmother was a major fundraiser of Senator Kennedy in early 1960 in New York, RFK’s uncle. He is like JFK in many ways. I may disagree with him on some issues, but he has my vote in a heartbeat. Americans need to come together to resist elitist corporations, politicians, Big Pharma and the one sided mainstream propaganda machine. We are seeing it now in the Israeli-Hamas war, totally one sided.
Thank you for this. I have been thinking that there is no way I could vote for either Trump or Biden. What the corporate media has done to Trump since 2016 is reprehensible, and what the Democrats are doing now by prosecuting their opponent is worse. What the Democrats are doing to promote the mutilation of our children is horrific. If I had to choose today, I would go with Trump. But if there was another choice? This may be it. I will keep an open mind. I can't believe that the two parties are saying to us that their best and brightest candidates are two old guys in their 80's!
100% about the two parties. Their tribalism has made a third option necessary.
Kennedy spoke eloquently yesterday about how his mind has been changed by talking to people about issues. An open learning mindset is necessary for a free people.
I like RFK, Jr very much, because I think he’s an honest man who seeks the truth and wants honest, transparent, accountable government. That’s admirable. However, my big concern is that he would adhere to the traditional Democrat economic policies of heavy government involvement in the private sector and economic activity.
Perhaps you could do a part 3 summarizing what his platform might be? I agree I think he brings something to the table which is very necessary for our times. Just not sure about what he would specifically try to accomplish.
Thank you for reminding me to speak my beliefs regardless of what I think other people might think of me.
I have been a supporter of RFK Jr since he first announced his candidacy as a democrat and was delighted when he announced as an independent. Although I am almost an octogenarian, and on a fixed income, I have contributed financially to his campaign. I will be putting yard signs and bumper stickers out as soon as they arrive.
All of that being said, the best and most effective action that I can take is to encourage everyone that I know to consider him as a serious candidate. Your essay has strengthened my resolve in that way.
In order for him to have a chance, everyone who considers him a worthwhile candidate must let that be known. I don’t agree with some of his positions. But he is thoughtful and respectful of other people’s opinions and ideas. At this point, given our current political turmoil, he is the voice of rational thought and reason.
Of course, The Greatest Lie itself is the idea that those who win elections (or are appointed to office) may steer government action in their personal preference, outside of allowable parameters.
Instead of concentrating on who we vote for, concentrate instead on how federal servants ignore or bypass their normal constitutional parameters, with impunity, and then end their bypass mechanism, by exposing their devious means, to the bright light of day.
Thankfully, NOTHING any federal servant has ever done (member of Congress, President or Supreme Court justice), and NOTHING they have all done together, has EVER changed anything that matters--NOT the Constitution and NOT their allowed powers they may everywhere exercise.
Instead, everything beyond the spirit of the Constitution rests on that Greatest Lie, that we may discard by exposing it to that bright light of day, so it shrivels and dies.
Oct 10, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by Barry Brownstein
Actually, Barry, I don't ever argue that the administrative state is "unconstitutional," in a blanket (unrestricted) comment sort of way, for that is actually how they pull it off--because it is not "facially" unconstitutional, in every case.
Their false extension of allowed special powers can be unconstitutional "as applied" beyond the District Seat, but no one ever argues that properly (so that is why those who claim just a blanket, unreserved "unconstitutional" action, always get it wrong and lose court cases).
For the scoundrels can and do exercise all sorts of powers ("exclusive" legislation powers) "in all Cases whatsoever" for the District Seat, that have nothing to do with the remainder of enumerated powers meant for the whole Union.
So, one clause DOES allow all their nonsense, including all of the administrative state--Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and that is how they pull off their spectacular political coup.
It is just that those special exclusive legislation actions ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIMITED to the District Seat.
They extend an ALLOWED special power BEYOND D.C. by following Alexander Hamilton's devious tactics (perfected by Chief Justice John Marshall) of holding even Clause 17 as *part* of "This Constitution" (which is understandable) which Article VI, Clause 2 specifically declares "This Constitution" to be of "the supreme Law of the Land."
This blanket statement within Article VI (without expressly exempting Cl. 17 from that same holding) gives all exclusive federal action the presumption of law (the color of law) binding upon the States, at least UNTIL the States show that they are NOT bound in their reserved powers, that are outside the enumerated powers for the whole Union, trumped by Congress' exclusive legislation powers.
I'm hoping my planned (starting January 1) LearnTheConstitutionInOneYear.com program will finally start making some impact, after decades of building content, but not getting anywhere (I definitely need to find someone who already has a political voice, to spread the message we have to hear, to throw off a false rule deviously extended over us (special "Big Powers" meant for "Little Implementation Areas" instead into the "Big Implementation Area" where only "Little Powers" are directly authorized).
I have a very large concern. I agree, Kennedy can win, however I don’t see it likely he gets to 270. So even if he wins then if he gets less than 270 delegates, then the House chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice President. I would find it hard to believe then that even if Kennedy won the electoral college, that congress would pick Kennedy and Independent.
Has anyone else thought of this? I am highly concerned. I hope Kennedy addresses this issue very soon. I was at the rally when he announced and was convinced he could win at that point. Now after realizing this however, as said, I have concerns regarding that part.
Absolutely, Chris. Today, RFK can't win. Yet what is impossible today, is possible tomorrow.
You heard him say it is our choice. And if enough people continue to "get with the program" we will all be disappointed. A seismic change cannot happen without a seismic mindset change and I believe that change is possible. Remember the keepers of "collective illusions" want us to give up and despair.
You're right, that is the only path to victory. I would guess that at this point they are not even thinking of which states are in play. I would imagine they are focused on getting Kennedy's polling numbers up to at least 25% to start to turn people's heads.
RFK, Jr. is right on ONE issue. He is VERY right, but only on that issue, the vaccines. On everything else he is an unremittent and unapologetic lefty/communist/Marxist. He, like all on the left, are simply totalitarians screaming to get out of their "liberal" skin.
On EVERY OTHER meaningful issue he is a doctrinaire Democrat. He believes, no he knows, that he and his ilk know better how the hoi polloi should live their lives, raise and educate our children, we are too stupid to be trusted with guns and decisions about healthcare spending. There is not a sliver of daylight between how he sees the world than all the rest of them. Hillary (though I will concede he is an honest man, so there is that), Biden, Obama, all of them.
He believes that the money that we earn belongs to the government and we should be thankful that we are allowed to keep almost half.
He would take our guns, if he could. He would encourage abortion up to and after birth.
So, please stop with naive statements that you would vote for him. Unless, UNLESS, you share his values, that government should be a LARGE as possible and the individual small.
I heard him interviewed a few weeks ago and his worldview on EVERYTHING (except for vaccines) is as conventional LEFT as any Dem currently serving at any level of government. His comments were completely condescending when it came to what he thought of the lower and middle class. He, like everyone on the left, knows that, in order to "make it in this world", we in flyover county all must have a big assist from the government. Down that road, awaits a totalitarian end. And regardless of how well he does (not very) we will quickly be in the shackles they have ready for us. Along with re-education camps and deprograming classes.
The ONLY way out of this is to defeat, totally defeat, the Left. If you don't understand that, you are either childishly naive or a part of the Left.
I have a long public record and I am not part of the left.
On guns Kennedy spoke to the Free Staters in NH this summer and received a warm reception. Guns came up in a long q and a. He's not taking anyone's guns.
"He would encourage abortion up to and after birth." I would be shocked if you can find support for that statement during this campaign.
Where you hear condescension, I hear humility and respect.
Mr. Brownstein, I had wanted to simply let this response of yours lie, as it is as wrong as you claim my original comment was. I figured I would have another opportunity to joust with you, and I did, over your post on "finding our "inner terrorist". However, today I ran across a piece in PJ Media by Stephan Green that, if one had not known better, seemed to be written just for me to prove how wrong you are about him.
It contains direct quotes from RFK, Jr. BTW, I have been following PJ Media for nearly two decades when they helped debunk Dan Rather's deceitful, lying account of George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard. I.e. they know how to get over the bunk and find the truth.
In the piece, Mr. Green used RFK's own words on the campaign trail to prove that he is still the radical leftist he always has been. As for your assertion that you have heard nothing from Kennedy's campaign that would indicate he is a lefty on any number of issues. Ya think, Barry? Do you really believe ANY Democrat would actually say in public what they REALLY BELIEVE? Sure, there are the nutty radicals like AOC and other members of the squad or a radical lefty senators like Bernie or Ben Cardin from Md. in safe districts or statewide in heavily blue states that spout the full on Marxist/Communist line because they know they don't have to worry about telling the truth.
But in ANY STATE or district in the country which is purple or red, Dems NEVER tell folks what they are for. They wouldn't last 10 minutes advocating for full term and partial birth abortion, reparations for ALL communities of color and oppressed people, gun registries and then confiscation, higher taxes on EVERYONE, or what they REALLY believe about "climate change" and the ends they are willing to go to to achieve "net neutrality". BTW, you are aware that Mr. Kennedy was Obama's pick for EPA director but it didn't go thru because...well, can you guess Barry? Was he unqualified? Nope. Were they worried he might curb the "climate" agenda in order for us to retain our wonderful standard of living? Not that either. The reason he wasn't pushed thru to serve in Obama administration was that he was considered too radical. Not by the R's but by the D's. Let that sink in. I don't think I have ever heard the words "too radical for Obama" in my entire life. And yet.
Naivete in children is cute. In women, it can be attractive but dangerous. In men it is only dangerous and leads to evil. Every. Single. Time. Stop being naïve.
My favorite quote of the beautiful and brilliant Ann Coulter follows. It is a close paraphrase. Liberals are desperate that the voters not figure what Dems really are advocating. Conservatives are just as desperate that voters listen to them long enough to actually understand what they are advocating.
RFK is perhaps the most rabid supporter of Israel out there, if you can explain how he can be both that AND a supporter of democracy and freedom it will be some acheivement. He's part of the billionaire predator class, and it's long past the time when grown ups stopped believing anything they say.
Dominic, I don't believe Kennedy is part of the predator class, he is running against corporatists and I believe he is sincere.
If you are arguing that Hamas are freedom fighters, I have no words for you in this short box. In process are several essays about the issue and I hope you can read them with an open mind.
Of course he's part of that class, he's a profound beneficiary of the system. As for trying to suggest that because one is anti the horrors of the state of Israel one must be pro Hammas, I would have thought such an idea beneath you. Ass I'm sure you know, Israel was the most rabidly pro-vaccine country of all and yet RFK is purporting to stand for medical freedom. Something will have to give.
Dominic, I'm puzzled by your reply. I will let you have the last say and then we can resume this when I post my essays.
Israel's pro-vaccine policy has nothing to do with RFK.
I have had some readers that no matter what my essay is about, write "how about Trump."
This essay is about RFK, why are you trying to make it about what you call "the horrors of Israel." When someone wants to hijack the conversation after the beyond belief atrocities Israel suffered, I suspect their motives.
Again, I won't respond further on this thread. If you need an outlet to bash Israel, try Caitlin Johnstone's Substack, she has now made it her full-time job.
I'm not making it about Isreal, I'm asking a precise question about the moral authority of RFK. RFK's platform of independence, and much of his ability to use that word with credibility comes from his stance against vaccine mandates and his work in support of the medical freedom movement more generally in the US. Given that the freedom of choice he argues for stands in stark repose to Israel's severe vaccine policies and yet he remains a fervent and uncritical admirer of the country, do those antithetical positions not give one pause for thought when weighing up the mans integrity?
RFK, jr., is apparently against vaccines. He may well have beliefs in this area that are different than medical experts in this field. Perhaps a very qualified individual, his anti vaccine stance may be problematical for him. Unless someone is convinced of his having the science correct on his positions, one might well hesitate to become a follower of RFK,jr.
Thank you an excellent analysis...I was raised as a classical liberal, which is now considered conservative or libertarian. My grandmother was a major fundraiser of Senator Kennedy in early 1960 in New York, RFK’s uncle. He is like JFK in many ways. I may disagree with him on some issues, but he has my vote in a heartbeat. Americans need to come together to resist elitist corporations, politicians, Big Pharma and the one sided mainstream propaganda machine. We are seeing it now in the Israeli-Hamas war, totally one sided.
Thank you for this. I have been thinking that there is no way I could vote for either Trump or Biden. What the corporate media has done to Trump since 2016 is reprehensible, and what the Democrats are doing now by prosecuting their opponent is worse. What the Democrats are doing to promote the mutilation of our children is horrific. If I had to choose today, I would go with Trump. But if there was another choice? This may be it. I will keep an open mind. I can't believe that the two parties are saying to us that their best and brightest candidates are two old guys in their 80's!
Thanks, MZ.
100% about the two parties. Their tribalism has made a third option necessary.
Kennedy spoke eloquently yesterday about how his mind has been changed by talking to people about issues. An open learning mindset is necessary for a free people.
I plan to proudly wear my Kennedy 2024 T-shirt after it arrives in my mailbox today. It's the first time I've ever purchased campaign merch!
Excellent!!! Waiting for part 2 and hoping RFK Jr will win.
Thank you, Andre.
I like RFK, Jr very much, because I think he’s an honest man who seeks the truth and wants honest, transparent, accountable government. That’s admirable. However, my big concern is that he would adhere to the traditional Democrat economic policies of heavy government involvement in the private sector and economic activity.
That is a risk. However, since he has no intentions of governing by executive orders, checks and balances will be restored.
Much to think about here. If RFK Jr had a sensible energy policy he would gain more support. But his green energy delusions persist.
Thanks, Ted. Kennedy has said he has been wrong about his climate positions. In any case he has no intentions of governing by executive orders.
Perhaps you could do a part 3 summarizing what his platform might be? I agree I think he brings something to the table which is very necessary for our times. Just not sure about what he would specifically try to accomplish.
Thank you for reminding me to speak my beliefs regardless of what I think other people might think of me.
I have been a supporter of RFK Jr since he first announced his candidacy as a democrat and was delighted when he announced as an independent. Although I am almost an octogenarian, and on a fixed income, I have contributed financially to his campaign. I will be putting yard signs and bumper stickers out as soon as they arrive.
All of that being said, the best and most effective action that I can take is to encourage everyone that I know to consider him as a serious candidate. Your essay has strengthened my resolve in that way.
In order for him to have a chance, everyone who considers him a worthwhile candidate must let that be known. I don’t agree with some of his positions. But he is thoughtful and respectful of other people’s opinions and ideas. At this point, given our current political turmoil, he is the voice of rational thought and reason.
Very well said.
I have never had a yard sign for a candidate but this year I will for RFK Jr. Do I believe yard signs sway anyone? Ordinarily the answer is easy, no.
But as you say our signs will signal others that he is a serious candidate and perhaps some neighbors will ask us why.
Thank you, Barry.
Robert Kennedy is a breath of fresh air.
He seems to understand what works and what matters.
As an Australian, I can only live in the hope that he becomes the next President of the USA.
For the sake of Americans and the world, I trust that there are sufficient numbers to see such a historic event.
Warmly John
Thanks, John.
Amen!
Of course, The Greatest Lie itself is the idea that those who win elections (or are appointed to office) may steer government action in their personal preference, outside of allowable parameters.
Instead of concentrating on who we vote for, concentrate instead on how federal servants ignore or bypass their normal constitutional parameters, with impunity, and then end their bypass mechanism, by exposing their devious means, to the bright light of day.
Thankfully, NOTHING any federal servant has ever done (member of Congress, President or Supreme Court justice), and NOTHING they have all done together, has EVER changed anything that matters--NOT the Constitution and NOT their allowed powers they may everywhere exercise.
Instead, everything beyond the spirit of the Constitution rests on that Greatest Lie, that we may discard by exposing it to that bright light of day, so it shrivels and dies.
100%, Matt. And RFK Jr. has spoken about restoring constitutional limits on power. And you are right, the administrative state is unconstitutional.
Actually, Barry, I don't ever argue that the administrative state is "unconstitutional," in a blanket (unrestricted) comment sort of way, for that is actually how they pull it off--because it is not "facially" unconstitutional, in every case.
Their false extension of allowed special powers can be unconstitutional "as applied" beyond the District Seat, but no one ever argues that properly (so that is why those who claim just a blanket, unreserved "unconstitutional" action, always get it wrong and lose court cases).
For the scoundrels can and do exercise all sorts of powers ("exclusive" legislation powers) "in all Cases whatsoever" for the District Seat, that have nothing to do with the remainder of enumerated powers meant for the whole Union.
So, one clause DOES allow all their nonsense, including all of the administrative state--Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and that is how they pull off their spectacular political coup.
It is just that those special exclusive legislation actions ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIMITED to the District Seat.
They extend an ALLOWED special power BEYOND D.C. by following Alexander Hamilton's devious tactics (perfected by Chief Justice John Marshall) of holding even Clause 17 as *part* of "This Constitution" (which is understandable) which Article VI, Clause 2 specifically declares "This Constitution" to be of "the supreme Law of the Land."
This blanket statement within Article VI (without expressly exempting Cl. 17 from that same holding) gives all exclusive federal action the presumption of law (the color of law) binding upon the States, at least UNTIL the States show that they are NOT bound in their reserved powers, that are outside the enumerated powers for the whole Union, trumped by Congress' exclusive legislation powers.
Matt, I would love to see you as an adviser to the Kennedy campaign!
Thanks!
I'm hoping my planned (starting January 1) LearnTheConstitutionInOneYear.com program will finally start making some impact, after decades of building content, but not getting anywhere (I definitely need to find someone who already has a political voice, to spread the message we have to hear, to throw off a false rule deviously extended over us (special "Big Powers" meant for "Little Implementation Areas" instead into the "Big Implementation Area" where only "Little Powers" are directly authorized).
I have a very large concern. I agree, Kennedy can win, however I don’t see it likely he gets to 270. So even if he wins then if he gets less than 270 delegates, then the House chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice President. I would find it hard to believe then that even if Kennedy won the electoral college, that congress would pick Kennedy and Independent.
Has anyone else thought of this? I am highly concerned. I hope Kennedy addresses this issue very soon. I was at the rally when he announced and was convinced he could win at that point. Now after realizing this however, as said, I have concerns regarding that part.
Absolutely, Chris. Today, RFK can't win. Yet what is impossible today, is possible tomorrow.
You heard him say it is our choice. And if enough people continue to "get with the program" we will all be disappointed. A seismic change cannot happen without a seismic mindset change and I believe that change is possible. Remember the keepers of "collective illusions" want us to give up and despair.
I see. So the plan then is to get at least 50% of the electoral college?
You're right, that is the only path to victory. I would guess that at this point they are not even thinking of which states are in play. I would imagine they are focused on getting Kennedy's polling numbers up to at least 25% to start to turn people's heads.
RFK, Jr. is right on ONE issue. He is VERY right, but only on that issue, the vaccines. On everything else he is an unremittent and unapologetic lefty/communist/Marxist. He, like all on the left, are simply totalitarians screaming to get out of their "liberal" skin.
On EVERY OTHER meaningful issue he is a doctrinaire Democrat. He believes, no he knows, that he and his ilk know better how the hoi polloi should live their lives, raise and educate our children, we are too stupid to be trusted with guns and decisions about healthcare spending. There is not a sliver of daylight between how he sees the world than all the rest of them. Hillary (though I will concede he is an honest man, so there is that), Biden, Obama, all of them.
He believes that the money that we earn belongs to the government and we should be thankful that we are allowed to keep almost half.
He would take our guns, if he could. He would encourage abortion up to and after birth.
So, please stop with naive statements that you would vote for him. Unless, UNLESS, you share his values, that government should be a LARGE as possible and the individual small.
I heard him interviewed a few weeks ago and his worldview on EVERYTHING (except for vaccines) is as conventional LEFT as any Dem currently serving at any level of government. His comments were completely condescending when it came to what he thought of the lower and middle class. He, like everyone on the left, knows that, in order to "make it in this world", we in flyover county all must have a big assist from the government. Down that road, awaits a totalitarian end. And regardless of how well he does (not very) we will quickly be in the shackles they have ready for us. Along with re-education camps and deprograming classes.
The ONLY way out of this is to defeat, totally defeat, the Left. If you don't understand that, you are either childishly naive or a part of the Left.
Mark, On several points you are clearly wrong.
I have a long public record and I am not part of the left.
On guns Kennedy spoke to the Free Staters in NH this summer and received a warm reception. Guns came up in a long q and a. He's not taking anyone's guns.
"He would encourage abortion up to and after birth." I would be shocked if you can find support for that statement during this campaign.
Where you hear condescension, I hear humility and respect.
Mr. Brownstein, I had wanted to simply let this response of yours lie, as it is as wrong as you claim my original comment was. I figured I would have another opportunity to joust with you, and I did, over your post on "finding our "inner terrorist". However, today I ran across a piece in PJ Media by Stephan Green that, if one had not known better, seemed to be written just for me to prove how wrong you are about him.
Here is the link to the piece. https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/10/19/rfk-jr-just-proved-hes-still-a-hard-left-radical-with-this-1-weird-trick-n1736246
It contains direct quotes from RFK, Jr. BTW, I have been following PJ Media for nearly two decades when they helped debunk Dan Rather's deceitful, lying account of George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard. I.e. they know how to get over the bunk and find the truth.
In the piece, Mr. Green used RFK's own words on the campaign trail to prove that he is still the radical leftist he always has been. As for your assertion that you have heard nothing from Kennedy's campaign that would indicate he is a lefty on any number of issues. Ya think, Barry? Do you really believe ANY Democrat would actually say in public what they REALLY BELIEVE? Sure, there are the nutty radicals like AOC and other members of the squad or a radical lefty senators like Bernie or Ben Cardin from Md. in safe districts or statewide in heavily blue states that spout the full on Marxist/Communist line because they know they don't have to worry about telling the truth.
But in ANY STATE or district in the country which is purple or red, Dems NEVER tell folks what they are for. They wouldn't last 10 minutes advocating for full term and partial birth abortion, reparations for ALL communities of color and oppressed people, gun registries and then confiscation, higher taxes on EVERYONE, or what they REALLY believe about "climate change" and the ends they are willing to go to to achieve "net neutrality". BTW, you are aware that Mr. Kennedy was Obama's pick for EPA director but it didn't go thru because...well, can you guess Barry? Was he unqualified? Nope. Were they worried he might curb the "climate" agenda in order for us to retain our wonderful standard of living? Not that either. The reason he wasn't pushed thru to serve in Obama administration was that he was considered too radical. Not by the R's but by the D's. Let that sink in. I don't think I have ever heard the words "too radical for Obama" in my entire life. And yet.
Naivete in children is cute. In women, it can be attractive but dangerous. In men it is only dangerous and leads to evil. Every. Single. Time. Stop being naïve.
My favorite quote of the beautiful and brilliant Ann Coulter follows. It is a close paraphrase. Liberals are desperate that the voters not figure what Dems really are advocating. Conservatives are just as desperate that voters listen to them long enough to actually understand what they are advocating.
Mark, I will say this. I was dismayed to read today that RFK is for reparations.
RFK is perhaps the most rabid supporter of Israel out there, if you can explain how he can be both that AND a supporter of democracy and freedom it will be some acheivement. He's part of the billionaire predator class, and it's long past the time when grown ups stopped believing anything they say.
Dominic, I don't believe Kennedy is part of the predator class, he is running against corporatists and I believe he is sincere.
If you are arguing that Hamas are freedom fighters, I have no words for you in this short box. In process are several essays about the issue and I hope you can read them with an open mind.
Of course he's part of that class, he's a profound beneficiary of the system. As for trying to suggest that because one is anti the horrors of the state of Israel one must be pro Hammas, I would have thought such an idea beneath you. Ass I'm sure you know, Israel was the most rabidly pro-vaccine country of all and yet RFK is purporting to stand for medical freedom. Something will have to give.
Dominic, I'm puzzled by your reply. I will let you have the last say and then we can resume this when I post my essays.
Israel's pro-vaccine policy has nothing to do with RFK.
I have had some readers that no matter what my essay is about, write "how about Trump."
This essay is about RFK, why are you trying to make it about what you call "the horrors of Israel." When someone wants to hijack the conversation after the beyond belief atrocities Israel suffered, I suspect their motives.
Again, I won't respond further on this thread. If you need an outlet to bash Israel, try Caitlin Johnstone's Substack, she has now made it her full-time job.
I'm not making it about Isreal, I'm asking a precise question about the moral authority of RFK. RFK's platform of independence, and much of his ability to use that word with credibility comes from his stance against vaccine mandates and his work in support of the medical freedom movement more generally in the US. Given that the freedom of choice he argues for stands in stark repose to Israel's severe vaccine policies and yet he remains a fervent and uncritical admirer of the country, do those antithetical positions not give one pause for thought when weighing up the mans integrity?
RFK, jr., is apparently against vaccines. He may well have beliefs in this area that are different than medical experts in this field. Perhaps a very qualified individual, his anti vaccine stance may be problematical for him. Unless someone is convinced of his having the science correct on his positions, one might well hesitate to become a follower of RFK,jr.
Sharen, I appreciate the kind note as well as the inspirational message!