Time for Supreme Court to weigh vaccine case?

 

By John Klar

A Maine family’s then-five-year-old son was vaccinated in November 2021 with the Pfizer-

BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a public school without his parents’ consent.  After the family filed suit, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that their state claims for damages were pre-empted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, holding that their parental rights to consent and their child’s right to bodily integrity were not violated.  By Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court dated June 2, 2025, the Hogan family has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review their case.

Most Americans trust their public schools not to inject their children with vaccines without consent, and they expect that if a school did offend this commonsense expectation, it would be legally liable.  Yet Maine is not alone in ruling that parents lose traditional legal protections when experimental COVID-19 vaccines are thrust into their children’s arms without consent.  Vermont’s Supreme Court ruled identically.

Maine’s highest court specifically ruled that the plaintiffs’ constitutional liberties had not been violated.  In their Petition, the Hogans’ legal counsel disagreed, listing numerous violations of all Americans’ most fundamental liberties that are undermined if the PREP Act is applied to foreclose their common law state rights.

As the petition explains:

If the PREP Act purports to authorize “covered persons” to administer vaccines in violation of state law, even to those who object thereto, then the PREP Act abridges both the constitutional right to bodily integrity and the fundamental liberty interest of the parents in the welfare and health of their child.

This process of leaving injured parties without a real remedy or access to the courts in their own state, and without the right to a jury trial there, is violative of both substantive and procedural due process.

 

The PREP Act creates a machinery for the abridgement of these constitutional rights. The

Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and other state supreme courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, have ignored these federally protected rights in deciding the PREP Act preempts state law protecting the rights of persons against common law battery and tortious interference with parental rights.

 

A creative jurisprudential argument in the Hogan petition invokes an evolving principle called the “anti-commandeering doctrine,”  which “recognizes that Congressional efforts to ‘commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program’ is unconstitutional.”  The Hogan petition explains that the U.S. Congress has overstepped its bounds by granting product liability immunity to vaccine manufacturers in derogation of the authority of states to oversee public safety:

In the United States, the state governments rather than the federal government possess the “police power,” and included within this power of the States is the power to regulate, administer and enforce public health laws.

 

There are many threats to liberty and due process within the PREP Act. There are constitutional missteps with the apparent attempt by Congress to impose laws regarding health (especially vaccines) not otherwise connected to its interstate commerce power. There are very real problems with preempting state lawsuits filed in state courts for violations of “bodily integrity,” and directing state judges to dismiss those lawsuits pending in their courts that somehow relate to injuries suffered after some federal official declares that an emergency exists.

Americans must pray that the U.S. Supreme Court scrutinizes this scheme of corporate protection at the expense of longstanding parental and patients’ rights with a critical eye.  More and more evidence has emerged under the Trump administration (and Robert F. Kennedy’s tenure as Health and Human Services secretary) that COVID vaccines were not “safe and effective” as advertised.  Federal agencies were deeply involved in disseminating misinformation and disinformation to amplify anxiety and pressure Americans to subject themselves and their children to under-tested, overhyped experimental vaccines.

Trust in federal agencies such as the NIH, CDC, and FDA will not be restored without accountability.  If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to address the egregious miscarriages of justice accomplished under the PREP Act, all American children are at continuous risk, and public schools will attract suspicion.  Similarly, public confidence in the nation’s highest court will be tarnished along with the federal agencies and Congress it is entrusted to hold to the highest law of the land.

Author, pastor, and attorney John Klar raises grass-fed beef and sheep in Vermont.  His Substack, Small Farm Republic, is based on his 2023 book Small Farm Republic: Why Conservatives Must Embrace Local Agriculture, Reject Climate Alarmism, and Lead an Environmental Revival. John is a staff writer at Liberty Nation News.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/time_for_supreme_court_to_weigh_vaccine_case.html

Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies

 A few simple calculations indicate that as much as one-quarter of U.S. public school enrollment could be anchor babies, meaning children with at least one parent illegally present in the United States. This alone amounts to at least $145.6 billion in public resources diverted from U.S. citizens every year.

Here’s the math. In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 17 percent of school-age children, or nine million kids, in the United States are children of at least one illegal alien. The New York Times has reported on the estimate. Some of these children are also foreign citizens, while some were born in the United States. Under a longstanding court misinterpretation, being born in the United States currently confers U.S. citizenship. Almost no other developed countries confer citizenship solely by birth location.

That’s already one in six kids in the United States who are legally subject to deportation to continue living with their parents. If you also assume that all of this population attends public schools, the percentage is more than 17. That’s because only 80 percent of U.S. kids attend a traditional public school, according to 2024 figures from EdChoice.

There were 50 million school-age kids in the United States in 2024, according to ChildStats.gov (adding in the five-year-olds to match the anchor baby age range and assuming there were 4 million of them, an equal age distribution among the 0-5 figure). Eighty percent of 50 is 40, so 40 million of the total 50 million U.S. kids went to public schools in 2024. Nine million anchor babies out of that total 40 million public-school attendees suggests 22.5 percent of U.S. public school enrollment could be anchor babies.

Why This Is a Reasonable Figure

Yes, these are estimates, and some very broad math. If anything, however, official estimates tend underestimate illegal migration, given its, well, illegal and illicit nature. So it’s absolutely within a reasonable range to assume somewhere around a quarter of U.S, public school enrollment is anchor babies.

It’s also fair to assume just about all anchor babies attend assigned public schools, for multiple reasons. First, public benefits are a key motivation for many foreign trespassers, as virtually all come from countries that spend far less on public services, including education. Even Kaiser says, “about three in four (77%) immigrant adults say they moved to the U.S. for a better future for their children.”

Plus, as even Kaiser and the NYT acknowledge, illegal immigrant households on average have significantly less income than the average American household. If the average U.S. household would prefer to enroll their children in private schools but doesn’t because of tuition, as EdChoice surveys have shown for years, illegally present foreigners are hardly likely to do so in any noticeable number.

Huge Implications

Now for some more math related to the taxpayer costs just of educating these nine million kids who would not be in the United States without lawbreaking. Federal statistics estimate U.S. taxpayers spent an average of $16,280 per student in school year 2020-21, the latest data available.

Nine million anchor babies times $16,280 each is $145.6 billion. Per year. Again, this is probably a lowball figure, for several reasons. First, taxpayer spending per pupil is higher today than in 2020, given the vast “Covid” money shoveled out and the resulting inflation pressuring legislatures to raise education spending for “teachers’ salaries” since then.

Second, the illegal immigrant population disproportionately hides in higher-spending blue states such as California, Illinois, and New York. New York taxpayers will shell out approximately $35,012 per student in the coming school year. In 2023, California public schools spent nearly $19,000 per student per year. In 2024, Illinois schools spent nearly $24,000 per student. This is another reason U.S. taxpayer spending on students who shouldn’t be in the United States is likely far higher than our $145.6 billion per year estimate.

Some might dismiss this astronomical figure as a rounding error in at least the federal budget. (Please, donate such “rounding errors” to my retirement fund!) But every dollar spent on a child who is rightly another country’s responsibility is a dollar not available for an American citizen. Further, this figure extended just seven years — about half of a child’s K-12 experience — totals $1 trillion. That’s half the current federal deficit.

A Huge Chunk of State Budgets

The fiscal distortions of just this one cost of illegal immigration are enormous, perhaps especially at the state level. States spend about half of their budgets on K-12, meaning 22.5 percent of fraudulent public school enrollment deprives legislatures of approximately one-tenth their annual revenue. That’s a ton of money not spent on other things taxpayers might prefer instead, including a pretty good tax cut.

To take an example: This year Indiana faced a $2.4 billion shortfall out of its $44 billion two-year budget. Indiana still managed to increase K-12 spending by 2 percent to $19 billion over the next two years. Indiana has approximately 1 million K-12 students, so that means it is spending $9,500 per student per year at solely the state level, meaning not including local and federal tax dollars.

If the average 22.5 percent of Indiana’s public school students are illegal aliens or their children, sending them to their home countries would alone have nearly solved Indiana’s $2 billion budget shortfall. That would be 225,000 students, at an annual state cost of $2.14 billion. Again, that doesn’t include the local and federal tax costs, which together are about the same amount as state expenditures, meaning it would have saved local taxpayers across Indiana another approximately $2 billion, not to mention all the downstream potential savings in smaller school buildings, less curriculum and supplies, and so on.

This means Indiana’s entire 2025 budget shortfall could have been due to the presence of illegal aliens, and solved by sending them where they belong. At the very least, illegal migration was a significant factor in the shortfall the legislature solved mostly with cuts to services and a dramatic cigarette tax increase.

In fact, an Indiana state senator, Republican Liz Brown, protected this problem by killing an immigration enforcement bill this session. She was enabled by Senate Pro Tem Rod Bray, who could have reassigned the bill to another committee than Brown’s and chose not to. According to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, Brown said she held the bill because she has an illegal immigrant family member.

Does this family member have children now getting a tax-sponsored education? How can Brown morally protect people who defraud the very citizens who elect her?

Update since publication: An Indiana Senate GOP spokeswoman points out Brown says she never told Rokita this, and has filed a legal grievance against Rokita for saying she did: “Sen. Liz Brown does not have an illegal immigrant family member.”

https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/05/nearly-one-quarter-of-u-s-public-school-enrollment-could-be-anchor-babies/

Dem Senator Did Not Just Say *That* About Abrego Garcia

 Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) can’t retreat, so he must double down on the Abrego Garcia drama. He’s the so-called ‘Maryland man,’ who was deported to El Salvador. He’s an illegal alien, an MS-13 member, an accused human trafficker, and a domestic abuser. The documents backing up the gang ties and wife-beating could scale the Rockies. Van Hollen had margaritas with him in El Salvador. 

He claims it’s about due process—it’s not. Garcia went through the legal system, which is how we know so much about him. The story has been a masterclass is showing how dumb politicians fall into PR traps; this one an elite one set up by Trump’s team. As soon as Van Hollen and other Democrats announced they would visit Garcia, they waited until they touched down to release the trove of Justice Department documents on the man.  

Now, Van Hollen is trying to take a victory lap because we’re bringing Garcia back…to face charges of human trafficking. No matter how this turns out, Garcia is either going to be in jail or deported. So, what even is this, Chris: 

Also, he said Garcia deserves an apology.  

CNN's Scott Jennings Drops the Mic on Abrego Garcia, and the Libs Lost Their MindsMatt Vespa

It gets worse—Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) tried to gaslight us all by claiming no Democrats defended Garcia. Roll the tapes: 

And people wonder why Democrats are in their worst shape in 50 years. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/06/07/jamie-raskin-no-democrat-defended-abrego-garcia-um-lets-roll-back-the-tapes-n2658350

FBI Foils Teen's Bomb And Mass Shooting Plot At Oregon Mall

 Last month, the FBI foiled a planned mass shooting and bombing at Three Rivers Mall in Kelso, Washington, about 50 miles north of Portland off I-5, according to MyNorthwest.com.

On May 22, Columbia County Sheriff’s deputies arrested a teenager—whose name is withheld due to his age—after the FBI received a tip about the planned attack on May 19.

“This plot was as serious as it gets,” said FBI Portland Special Agent in Charge Doug Olson. “We, along with our partners, moved swiftly to interrupt this violent plan and to protect our community.”

The MyNorthwest.com report says that the suspect, a Columbia County resident, embraced a nihilistic, violent ideology and shared his plans online. Authorities placed him under surveillance.

“The suspect demonstrated the intent and means to carry out their plan, which included precise details such as a map of the mall, a route the shooter would follow, a plan to use an improvised explosive device commonly known as a chlorine bomb to incite panic, and then to shoot mall patrons as they were exiting the movie theatre before ultimately committing suicide at a pre-determined location in the mall,” the FBI said.

During a search, investigators found annotated schematics, weapons, and clothing he planned to wear, along with three handguns, ammunition, four knives, and five digital devices, according to The Oregonian.

The Columbia County District Attorney’s office is prosecuting the case.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fbi-foils-teens-bomb-and-mass-shooting-plot-oregon-mall

Internal document shows how UnitedHealth executives prepared to tamp down investor unrest

'Company accidentally sent STAT a confidential memo with talking points for shareholder meeting'

 

An internal document drafted in advance of UnitedHealth Group’s shareholder meeting this week reveals how the company’s leadership — facing an extraordinary series of financial and legal challenges — sought to downplay complaints about its business practices and assure jittery investors that it will soon return to maximum profitability.

The 18-page document, marked in red “privileged and confidential,’’ offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the nation’s most powerful health care conglomerate as it endures arguably the most difficult stretch in its nearly 50-year history. The last six months have been punctuated by government investigations, a tanking stock price, and the brazen killing of a top executive on a Manhattan street before the annual investor conference last December.

UnitedHealth’s document, labeled as a draft and dated May 29, runs through manicured talking points apparently intended to coordinate the response to shareholders’ questions. Specifically, the document shows how Stephen Hemsley, the company’s longtime CEO and board chair who shies away from publicity, is navigating the leadership shakeup since retaking the reins last month. Investors have raised pointed concerns over his $60 million pay package. 

https://www.statnews.com/2025/06/04/unitedhealth-group-accidentally-emails-confidential-talking-points-to-reporter/

Impact of Privatizing Federal Student Loans on Borrowers

 Currently, federal student loans are issued by the U.S. Department of Education through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.

1 However, recent efforts by the Trump administration suggest this system may be heading toward privatization. If this change were to be implemented, borrowers would likely be trading federal protections for the possibility of better rates and terms.

Key Takeaways

• Privatizing federal student loans would most likely entail private lenders facilitating new loans that are backed by the government.
• Potential benefits of privatization include increased competition and borrowers being steered toward more lucrative fields.
• Potential drawbacks, however, include certain students being unable to secure funding and the loss of federal borrower protection.

Understanding Potential Privatization 

Federal student loans offer fixed interest rates and benefits like income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, forbearance, and deferment, as well as debt forgiveness.2 While the government issues the loans, third-party servicers, such as Mohela and Nelnet, handle the day-to-day management.3

Privatizing student loans would likely require reviving the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program (or instituting something similar to it). That program was discontinued in 2010 and replaced by the Federal Direct Loan Program.4 Under FFEL, private lenders, such as banks, credit unions, or other financial institutions, were the originators of new, government-subsidized student loans. These subsidies compensated lenders for keeping interest rates at or below federally mandated levels and protected them when borrowers defaulted on their loans.5

Note

The federal government guaranteed up to 97% of a loan’s outstanding principal and interest to incentivize private lenders to participate in the FFEL program. As a result, billions in taxpayer subsidies were being spent on services that the Department of Education could carry out directly.5

Alternatively, the government could completely (or at least partially) divest itself from originating student loans and allow the private market to take its place. These lenders would be free to set their own terms, meaning interest rates would be tailored to each borrower’s creditworthiness (rather than set by federal policy). Additionally, without government subsidies, private lenders would be the ones assuming the risk that borrowers might default.

In either case, new student borrowers would take out loans with private lenders. Meanwhile, outstanding education loans would presumably continue to be administered by the government, though it might be able to effectively privatize existing loans by selling them to private financial institutions.6 For any of these changes to be enacted, however, Congressional approval would be required.7

Pros and Cons of Privatizing Student Loans

Pros

• Increase competition

• Free up federal funding

• Better return on investment (ROI)

Cons

• Limit accessibility

• Potentially increase national debt

• Loss of federal protections

Pros Explained

• Increase competition: In theory, further competition in the private lending market can incentivize lenders to offer more favorable rates and terms to attract borrowers.7
• Free up federal funding: As the federal government wouldn’t need to devote resources to student lending, it could put those funds toward paying down the national debt or financing grants for low-income students.
• Better return on investment (ROI): Without government subsidies, private lenders stand to lose money if borrowers default, incentivizing them to steer students toward degrees with sufficient earnings potential to eventually repay their debts.8

Cons Explained

• Limit accessibility: The private market is also incentivized to deny applicants who represent a greater credit risk or are pursuing degrees with lower ROIs, including those associated with socially valuable or culturally significant fields.9
• Potentially increase national debt: Private lenders would likely be unwilling to purchase the massive federal student loan portfolio, which means government guarantees or subsidies would likely be required to make it a better offer.
• Loss of federal protections: Borrowers would almost certainly lose access to IDR plans, deferment and forbearance options, and debt forgiveness, as private lenders have a greater incentive than the government to make sure loans are repaid in full.7

The Bottom Line

The privatization of student loans would significantly alter how students finance higher education. While the move may mean some borrowers end up getting a better deal than they would under the current Federal Direct Loan Program, it may also restrict who’s able to attend college and leave borrowers with little recourse if they can’t repay their debts. 

Such a substantial change shouldn’t be possible without approval from Congress. However, students and their families should still stay informed and keep an eye out for additional changes to the student lending system that the current administration may try to implement.

https://www.investopedia.com/impact-of-privatizing-federal-student-loans-on-borrowers-what-you-need-to-know-11738779

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

 by Maryanne Demasi via The Brownstone Institute,

Economist Professor Gigi Foster delivered a TEDx talk titled The Manipulators’ Playbook at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in October 2024.

It was a bold examination of how, in times of crisis, fear and conformity can be deliberately harnessed by those in power to manipulate public behaviour and silence dissent.

Her message was a call to defend the freedom to question, to challenge authority, and to think independently.

The local TEDxUNSW team, who had worked closely with Foster to ensure her talk met TEDx standards, described it as “insightful and important.”

But when the video was submitted to TED’s US headquarters for publication on the organisation’s official YouTube channel, it was rejected.

The reason? The talk “did not adhere to the TEDx content guidelines.”

A Defence of Dissent—Silenced

Foster’s talk drew on the Covid-19 experience, arguing that during the pandemic, the space for critical thought collapsed. Dissenters were vilified, and dialogue gave way to dogma.

She described how critics of mainstream Covid responses were smeared with labels—“a danger to public health…a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist…probably a prepper or a cooker…almost surely a far-right extremist and probably racist to boot.”

Drawing comparisons with the Cultural Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany, she warned that the marginalisation of dissent has deep historical roots—where enemies of the state are manufactured to maintain social control.

Foster recalled being labelled a “granny killer,” defamed online (despite never having a Twitter account), and receiving death threats for questioning lockdown policies.

“Well, I didn’t shut up,” she said. “And today, more than four years on… hundreds of books, academic papers, and tragic personal stories confirm I was right.”

“The lockdowns didn’t save lives. They were rather a massive human sacrifice induced by fear, politics, and money,” she added.

A Bureaucracy That Cannot Handle Dissent

By December 2024, with the video still unpublished, TEDxUNSW informed Foster that the US team had flagged her talk for further review.

She was asked to submit additional evidence to substantiate her claims—particularly those relating to lockdowns, mass vaccination, and censorship.

Foster complied, providing a detailed annotation backed by peer-reviewed studies, public health data, and academic commentary. But it wasn’t enough.

On 22 December, the local team relayed a list of statements TED deemed “potentially contentious,” including her description of lockdowns as a “massive human sacrifice,” her comparisons to authoritarian regimes, and her criticisms of public health leaders.

Despite acknowledging that her arguments were “compelling,” TEDx informed Foster on 21 March 2025 that the talk had been formally rejected—and could not be published on any platform.

“We were truly disappointed that TEDx did not approve your talk,” the organisers wrote to Foster, “especially given how insightful and important your message is.”

Surprised—particularly after months of collaboration—Foster asked for an official explanation. TED’s US office responded:

Supporting open dialogue, thoughtful debate, and critical thinking about issues affecting local communities is an important part of TED and TEDx’s mission…[However] talks should not attack political and public health leaders, promote their own initiatives or business endeavours, denigrate those who don’t share the speaker’s own beliefs, use polarising ‘us vs. them’ language and divisive rhetoric, or broadly dismiss peer-reviewed research around science and health. Upon further review of the associated materials and talk content, we therefore determined that Foster’s talk did not adhere to the TEDx content guidelines and will not be added to our YouTube channel.”

Foster pushed back, arguing that her talk aligned with TED’s stated mission to “spread ideas that spark conversation, deepen understanding, and drive meaningful change.”

She said the rejection misrepresented her content and stressed that her statements were “backed by studies of high intellectual and scientific rigour.”

She provided citations covering everything from censorship and vaccine mandates to excess deaths and lockdown impacts.

But TED never responded—and still refuses to publish the talk on its platform.

TED Abandons Its Own Mission

The implications extend far beyond one speaker or one talk.

TED, a platform that built its reputation on hosting challenging, uncomfortable—even radical—ideas, now appears unwilling to engage with narratives that challenge institutional power.

Foster’s talk was not incendiary. It was measured, historically grounded, and supported by evidence. But it questioned the public health consensus—and that, it seems, is now off-limits.

This isn’t just ironic; it’s an abandonment of TED’s own mission.

TED has previously published talks on alien intelligence, psychic phenomena, and utopian futures. Yet a sober, data-driven critique of pandemic policies by a respected economist? That, apparently, was too dangerous to air.

And TED is not alone. Across the digital landscape, we’re witnessing a broader pattern. Platforms once celebrated for fostering open dialogue are quietly narrowing the boundaries of acceptable thought.

Foster’s message was a warning—about how powerful institutions can manipulate public perception, weaponise fear, and suppress dissent, all while cloaking themselves in the language of public good.

She urged audiences to stay alert to manipulation disguised as altruism and to “celebrate forums at which people are allowed and encouraged to think, discuss, critically analyse, and ponder aloud.”

Instead, TED became the very thing she warned against: a gatekeeper of permissible opinion, enforcing orthodoxy behind the smokescreen of “community guidelines.”

For a platform that once prided itself on promoting bold thinking, TED’s censorship of Foster’s talk is a moment of institutional retreat—and intellectual cowardice.

Read the entire talk here

Republished from the author’s Substack

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/when-ideas-become-too-dangerous-platform