Calling Bull on Hillary Clinton

As we say occasionally, this site is called “Allergic to Bull” for a reason.  And there is no greater bullsh—ers on Earth than Bill and Hillary Clinton.

So everyone is talking about the anti-vaccination movement suddenly and suddenly pretending it is mainly a problem on the right.  I will sum up how I feel about it, shortly.

First, I am always open to previously unforeseen scientific possibilities.  We always should be.  But...

Second, I have never seen any credible evidence linking autism to vaccines.

Third, there is a concerted misinformation campaign on the subject.  For instance, there is strong evidence that a famous Lancet study on the subject was influenced by trial lawyers looking to cash in on the panic, which is as scummy as it gets.  Which leads me to my next point...

Fourth, there are likely a number of people honestly duped, and responding with anger seems inappropriate.

Fifth, I am very dubious about government attempts to force vaccinations.  I say that recognizing that it does harm third parties when you don’t vaccinate your kid, but I am doubtful it is right to use force.

Most basically, we have to talk about what level of government force we are going to use, here.  Whatever you think about the Eric Garner death, one thing is pretty obvious: whenever you allow for incarceration to be the punishment, you increase the chances that people will die for stupid reasons.  Maybe you think his death is an excusable accident.  Or maybe you don’t, but even if you don’t, you have to acknowledge that sometimes people die in custody and it is no one’s fault.  For instance, the mere stress of being handcuffed might freak some people out enough to cause a spontaneous heart attack however gentle the arresting officer is being—some people just freak out.  And whether you think Garner was killed by excessive force, or not, every person can agree that Garner would probably be alive if we didn’t make selling “looseys” an arrestable offense.  Which suggests it shouldn't be an arrestable offense.

So we are going to do what?  Hold down children and force the injection into them?  Of course the more common way to force vaccinations on people is to say that their children can’t attend school without them.  And if the parents can’t find and afford any private school willing to take unvaccinated children in, then the threat is that the parents will be punished under truancy laws.  And very often those laws allow for arrest.   Which means a few parents are likely to die each year because of that.  That seems like a bad idea to me.  I think the better approach is coercive fines for failure to vaccinate.

So that is what I think on the subject, for what it is worth.  But I would rather talk about this little bit of bull from Hillary Clinton:

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 3, 2015

Of course, this is not to say that she is factually wrong on any of these points.  (I saw a guy whine that the earth isn’t technically a perfect sphere, and that is true, but it is round.)   But everyone reads this as “wow, Hillary has repudiated the anti-vaxxers!”

But as it always is with the Clintons, you have to pay attention to what is not being said.  What is not being said?  "Vaccines don’t cause autism."  "Everyone should be required to be vaccinated" (liberals have zero objection to the use of state violence to force people to do things “for their own good,” they are never pro-choice outside of the bedroom).  And certainly she isn’t saying that the government should not be wasting money on anti-vaccination research.  Hey, we should be open to any possibility if sufficient proof is presented, but we shouldn’t be going further into debt to China to research what appears to be a boondoggle.

So when we go back and find that Hillary believed that vaccines might be linked to autism, and gosh, we should “invest” (liberal code talk for “spend tax payer money”) on researching that link, folks that is not even inconsistent.  (See, here and here.)

I mean, let’s break that down.  “Vaccines work,” Hillary says.  As I understand it most of the anti-vaxxers agree.  They work, but they might have a terrible side effect, or so the main anti-vaxxer argument goes.  I have even heard them suggest that it’s a chemical preservative, suggesting that in their mind they believed that if you just changed what chemicals you used, the vaccine can be safe.  (As if they weren’t in the first place.)  So that statement is not even disagreeing with that.

And “let’s protect all our kids?”  Against what?  She could easily say later, she meant that we need to protect our kids from both vaccines and potential autism links.

And if you think that intentional wiggle room is accidental, you are falling for her schtick.

This is what you are going to get with a Clinton 2.0 presidency.  Four years, or God help us, eight years of constantly having to dissect every word she says to figure out what she is not saying.  This isn’t flip-flopping, as Instapundit put it.  In order to flip flop, you have to support one position clearly and then support the other.  What Hillary did is more insidious: she didn’t take a clear position in the first place.  She never came out as an anti-vaxxer, and yesterday she didn’t come out as an anti-anti-vaxxer.  She just pretended to, always leaving enough wiggle room to pretend she actually supported the other side all along.

This is more basic than whether you agree with her on one position or another.  For instance, liberals always claim that truth in advertising laws are a good example of why we need the massive liberal state, but they have no problem with liberal politicians engaging in false advertising to win elections.  For instance, Obama went from supporting gay marriage, to opposing it, to supporting it again.  But, liberals reasoned, that was okay because he was only pretending to oppose it to win an election.  Likewise Wendy Davis pretended to support open carry in Texas in order to get elected.  Of course lying politicians exist on both sides of the aisle, including some of the most allegedly conservative ones.  But the difference, in my opinion, is how many liberals are perfectly okay with their politicians lying to get elected.  Of course it is always framed as “they are lying to these other ignorant rubes in order to get elected but in reality s/he agrees with me.”  It never occurs to them that they are the rubes until it is too late.

In the end, I think any “truth in political advertising” law is a bad idea on First Amendment grounds.* But that doesn’t mean that We the People can’t impose a de facto rule with our voting patterns.  We should consider this kind of dishonesty an absolute disqualifier for higher office.  And any person who thinks it is okay to lie to get elected simply doesn’t believe in Democracy.

---------------------------------------

* I am not a fan of truth in advertising laws in general, either, mostly because I worked with lawyers who litigated such cases.  I can tell you there is a whole industry devoted to intentionally misinterpreting advertisements so that they can complain to the appropriate government agencies, sue and generally run up legal fees as a form of economic warfare.  The result of this is 1) a large percentage of everything you buy is paying for legal fees, and 2) market entry is harmed.  While I am not sure we should allow for a free-for-all, I do think the standards need to be tightened before filing and there needs to be penalties for filing false claims.

This goes to the old complaint of “you took advantage of a program therefore you can’t ever criticize it,” strain of thought. Of course, I never personally did so, but even if I did, so what?  Sometimes the best people to understand what is wrong with a system is a person who worked in the system.  For instance, when Ken White or Patrick “Patterico” Frey talks about there being too much prosecutorial discretion, you tend to take their opinion more seriously, no?

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.