Jim Jordan Attempts To Obstruct Trump’s Indictment

Also Available On:

Listen on Spotify Badge

Jim Jordan Runs To Fox To Cry Over Bragg’s Lawsuit

“I Am in the Executive Branch” – VP Harris Responds to Former VP Pence’s Legislative Branch Claim

Biden-Harris Reversal of Trump Free Inquiry Rule Evokes Mixed Emotions Among Professors, Students
CJLS Guidance for Remote Minyanim in a Time of COVID-19

Emergency! – The Old Engine Cram (Season 5 Episode 2 – 1975)

Buy Me A Coffee

Show Transcript

Click here to read full transcript

[0:00] Representative Jim Jordan attempts to obstruct a state criminal case. Vice President Kamala Harris is a master politician. A rule giving religious student groups that discriminate school funding should go away. And we find out that vaccine hesitancy is not a new thing. I’m Doug Berger and this is Secular Left

[0:29] Music.

[0:45] We’ve known for decades that Donald Trump is a crook, essentially. He was a slumlord who discriminated against minorities trying to rent apartments from his real estate company. We know that he has faked bankruptcies to get out of paying debts. We know that he’s done some other things with his businesses that are pretty shady, such as taking money from Russian banks and not reporting it, etc. etc. And he’s done personal things while in office as president that he personally benefited from or that his family benefited from. He also stole from a charity that he had to pay for personal things, etc. etc. And we know Donald Trump is a criminal, just out and out, one of them businessmen that think that they’re untouchable and that they can do whatever they want. And so it was not surprising that he was indicted for something. What kind of surprised me was he was indicted for not for paying money to a sex worker.

[2:07] To stay silent, but the fact that he doctored his business records to cover up the payment, to make it look like it was a business transaction and not hush money to keep Stormy Daniels from talking about their relationship, or their, not relationship, but their get-together. And so, you know, you had a lot of gnashing teeth and clutching of pearls from the right, as we expect because they’ve done everything they can to defend whatever Donald Trump did or has done. They try to both side it saying, well, the Democrats have done worse. We even have in the U.S. House Judiciary, not the Judiciary Committee, but the Oversight Committee, chaired by James Comer, is looking into the Biden family criminal enterprises, as they like to call it. It’s like that tit-for-tat thing.

[3:07] And that’s what gets me. That’s what’s one of my pet peeves. Some people who both sides the unprecedented actions of Republicans to normalize it. Of going against what they’re doing, they try to normalize it and justify it like it’s just part of politics. We saw that recently when the Tennessee state legislature basically expelled two black members who were Democrats for protesting a lack of gun regulations after the mass shooting at a Nashville elementary school a few weeks before that. They actually did that and the Speaker of the Tennessee House likened their protest to the insurrection on January 6th. And in one of the comment sections on the local paper of mine had one of them Trump supporters bring that up, saying that, you know, well, you know, Black Lives Matter people did this and they were being violent and trying to overthrow the government. I’m like, listen.

[4:28] You know, that protest that those lawmakers in Tennessee did was nothing like the insurrection. There wasn’t any beating of cops. There wasn’t any spreading of crap all over the walls. There There wasn’t stealing items that they shouldn’t be stealing. They didn’t trust pass. They were legislators. So, this big, you know, and that’s what the, that’s what Republicans do is they project. And so, they are doing to other people what they’re afraid is gonna happen to them, or they accuse other people of doing things that they’ve done.

[5:08] And it’s getting ridiculous. And so, you know, I’m a little disappointed that the first indictment was because of.

[5:17] What he did with the hush money paying to Stormy Daniels, when there’s far more greater crimes like the document crime, and I guess they’re waiting for an indictment in Georgia for interfering with with the election, I think that’s a far greater crime than paying hush money to a sex worker. And so, to me, the whole indictment thing, I just think it’s all part of that interworking, political, back-slapping stuff that happens. I remember years ago, back in the 1980s, there was what they called a savings and loan crisis. There was a lot of little regional savings and loan banks, and for whatever reason, fraud or lack of regulation or manipulation, these savings and loan banks started going belly up and the government had to take them over. Or run on the banks, and it happened across the country. Well, they figured out that this guy in Arizona, the guy’s name was Charles Keating, and he owned or was part of a savings and loan bank that cost the federal government when it failed billions of dollars to bail out.

[6:46] And the guy ended up going to prison. He was sentenced to prison for fraud. Convicted in both federal and state courts for many counts of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy. And he served four and a half years before the convictions were overturned.

[7:05] You know, he was a white conservative guy. He was part of the anti-porn movement back in the 70s. And he got off basically scot-free because he served four and a half years in prison for bilking customers out of over three billion dollars. And so then they tried him again or, had him plead guilty to a more limited set of wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts. And so he was sentenced to time he had already served. So that’s how this works. Rich white guys, rich white conservative guys.

[7:43] When we’re talking white collar crimes like business crimes, they just tend to get off. They just, they don’t get, they don’t, aren’t held accountable. So I’m kind of doubtful that Trump is going to get convicted of this business, you know, faking these business records. You know, I like the fact that he’s indicted. I just don’t hold out hope that this is going to stick. The ones that I want to see stick is like interfering with the election in Georgia, the fake electors, the missing documents case. Those are the ones I want to see stick because those are going, those are felony, automatically felony charges. And according to some of the state laws and federal laws, that’s some serious prison time. I know this one woman who was a convicted felon who mistakenly voted in an election was sentenced to 10 years in prison for voting when she shouldn’t have been.

[8:50] You know, so I want to see some serious jail time and even then that won’t keep him from running for president in 2024 and he’ll use that. The other part of this indictment thing in Manhattan is the work of Trump crony representative Jim Jordan from Ohio. He nominally represents the fourth district here in Ohio. I say nominally because the whole time he’s been in Congress he hasn’t sponsored any bills. He’s done nothing except.

[9:32] Conservative crap like being part of the Freedom Caucus and chastising Democrats and Joe Biden. And so he is the chair of the Judiciary Committee. It’s a powerful committee and he subpoenaed a former attorney in the Manhattan DA’s office who was in charge initially of the Trump hush money investigation. And I believe it was January of last year after the current DA came into office, this lead attorney quit. He resigned. And Jim Jordan gave the guy a subpoena to, have a secret testimony, give testimony behind closed doors because he’s looking for crap against this DA to try to help out his buddy Donald Trump.

[10:26] The problem is, and there’s a couple problems, first of all, Congress does not have the legal oversight of a state criminal investigation at all.

[10:39] They don’t have oversight at all. You know, Congress can make laws that eventually affect prosecution of state crimes, but you can’t have the Judiciary Committee giving a subpoena to the DA and asking him questions about why he’s indicting a particular person, especially when it’s this person. Because right now, Trump is under indictment for state crimes. There’s no federal law involved right now. And so, Jim Jordan, that’s the first mistake that Jordan is making, is sticking his nose into a state issue. And states get ticked off when federal people stick their nose in their business.

[11:27] The second mistake that he’s making is, from what I’ve read, this lead attorney that quit, he’s not going to be a whistleblower. He wanted to indict Trump last year, and the reason why he quit was because he was mad because the DA didn’t seem to want to move on the indictment when he wanted it to. So because the DA wasn’t doing what he wanted the DA to do, he quit. So he’s not going to be a buddy of Jim Jordan and giving him all the dirt that Jim Jordan believes that exists, this fantasy world that Jim Jordan lives in. So those are a couple mistakes that Jordan has made. So the District Attorney of Manhattan, Bragg, is suing Jordan for interfering. Filed a lawsuit in federal court. It probably might get dismissed or or something like that because a lot of times you can’t prosecute a member of Congress if they’re doing their job, but it might be enough to smack him on the nose and tell him to butt out. And it’s just so obvious that Jordan is just sniffing at Trump’s backside and trying to help him out. And it’s just ridiculous. That’s what’s getting me about that. So that’s what’s happening with Trump’s indictment. And that’s a couple of things that I think about it.

[12:53] For more information about any of the topics covered in this episode, check out our show notes at secularleft.com.

[12:59] Music.

[13:06] The next item that I wanted to talk about is Vice President Kamala Harris. She is a former, prosecutor in I believe it’s San Francisco. She was formerly Attorney General of California and formerly Senator from California, and she is the Vice President. First woman Vice President, first, woman vice president, first vice president from, I believe her mother was from India. And so you know everything about about her being in office is great.

[13:42] Now sometimes I have arguments with some conservative people in comments and on the internet where they complain, basically take her to task because she’s a woman. Saying that she’s dumb or stupid or doesn’t know how to talk or spits out a lot of word salad. If you do a search in the right-wing sphere of the internet you’ll find videos of her sounding ridiculous because I don’t think she’s, very good off the cuff. I think she has to do her talking points like practice them and stuff like that which is fine you know she doesn’t want to make any mistakes but she ends up getting tripped up and she says something and then that gets amplified. There’s a political group I have, a political discussion group I monitor on Facebook and one of the rules I have is people can’t talk crap about Kamala Harris except if it’s about her policies or about opinions that she may have. You can’t talk crap about her because she’s a woman. You can’t be misogynist about her. I don’t allow it. And I don’t practice it.

[15:04] Now, she’s a very good politician. She’s the vice president. The vice president, doesn’t have any real prescribed job duties other than being president of the Senate, of the U.S. Senate. She also is supposed to fill in for the president should he become disabled or, or under anesthesia or he’s not able to fulfill his duties, then she is the acting president until either he recovers or he resigns or dies in office or whatever.

[15:44] And so basically, the vice president gets sent to do weird things like open shopping malls, shopping malls or I think he appointed her czar about the southern border so she works on that. And according to conservatives she doesn’t do a good job on that. And then of course vice presidents get sent to funerals and weddings to represent the president. Anyway, so she doesn’t have a lot to do but I’m very happy that she’s in the job. Because that broke one of the barriers that has existed for a long time. We didn’t have a woman in one of the top jobs in government, and now we do. Besides, Nancy Pelosi just recently retired from the speakership. That’s the third in line, but now we finally have a woman that’s second in line. So now, all we need for the bucket list is to elect a woman president. Hopefully that happens in my lifetime.

[16:51] Anyway, so the other night a couple weeks ago two or three weeks ago She appeared on this on the Stephen Colbert show, Late night with Stephen Colbert me and my fiance are watching it because we like Kamala and we wanted to hear what she did and she had the typical talking points about how good the Biden administration is and all this Stuff, but then they started talking about her.

[17:15] She brought it up. She started talking about how they’ve been really active, proactive about climate change and electric cars and getting investments on infrastructure to try to give us clean water and clean air. Stephen Colbert is not a journalist by trade. He is a comedian. And unlike most journalists we see in mainstream media today, he asked a follow-up question and I wanted to, to play the audio from this and I want to see if people hear what I heard when I saw this live the other night on his show. He talks about sleeping later but other than that… Right here, that right there, that is Vice President Kamala Harris. Let’s assume for a moment that President Biden is going to run again. What do you imagine this next election is going to be about? What are going to be the major issues that will define this election? I think it will be as the president has said about.

[18:24] Seeing it through and building on the momentum that we have achieved thus far. I mean, think about it. In only the last two years, we have, by my estimate, with the bills and the legislation that we have passed, we are putting up to $1 trillion on the streets of America on the issue of the climate crisis, around investment in resilience and adaptation. What we are doing. I know there are a lot of students here. And what we are doing in terms of understanding the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also this very exciting moment in the world around a new economy we are building, a clean energy economy. And what that means, not only in terms of the jobs we are creating, including American-based manufacturing, but what we rightly are doing to prioritize the importance of clean air and clean water. Okay, well, if that is the case, and I know that has been a priority for the administration. How do you square that with the president having said there will be no new drilling licenses issued on public land and then approving the Willow oil project in Alaska?

[19:36] People are saying that’s breaking a campaign promise. What’s the calculus there? Well, I understand the concerns that have been made, but here’s the thing. When you look at what our administration has done, it’s historic in terms of an investment in a clean energy economy. We are putting America back on the map globally, recognizing that we must live up to our role.

[19:58] In terms of our ability to invest in the future, create jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And again, traveling the world, they are watching what we are doing as an example and as a challenge to nations around the world and what can be done to address this issue. I would say that we have been quite bold in terms of the advances that we are making thus far, but we have more to do. Look at, for example, what we’re doing around electric vehicles. We have just passed legislation that means that people will get rebates, not only if you buy a new electric vehicle, but more importantly, rebates on used electric vehicles. We are investing in the manufacturing of electric buses, electric school buses. We are partnering with the apprenticeship programs, IBEW and others, who are training our workforce to do some of the most advanced work that can be done. So there’s a lot of good work happening.

[20:51] Was there any discussion in the White House about what the blowback would be for approving the Willow Oil Project? Because people have gotten quite upset about it. I think there’s some protesters outside right now. Well, I think that the concerns are based on what we should all be concerned about. But the solutions have to be and include what we are doing in terms of going forward in terms of investments. And I thought that Colbert did an excellent job. He not only brought up the question about drilling in the wilderness area that Biden did say he would not permit when he was running. So he is breaking a campaign promise. But he mentioned it and in.

[21:33] Kamala, she didn’t answer the question. She just went back to her talking points about how successful we’re doing this and how successful we’re doing that. And we’re creating jobs and and trying to deflect. And then he comes, then Kober comes back again and asks the follow-up again. You know, what about drilling in this wilderness area? And again, she deflects it. It was masterful on her part. But if you watch it, and as long as you don’t fall for the manipulation, the talking point manipulation.

[22:11] She does not answer his question. He does. She doesn’t address the issue, which is that during the campaign, Biden said he would not allow any drilling in any wilderness areas, protected areas, and they just recently approved a permit to do just that. So naturally, you would think a politician would say, you know, and what Colbert asks, you know, what was the calculus? Why did you do that? And she never answers the question. So I still like Kamala Harris, but, you know, I have to admit she’s a good politician. You know, she knows what she’s doing. She knows what she’s saying. She knows what everything she’s saying. And but it’s going to be interesting to see because, you know, the administration has gotten a lot of pushback on that that drilling thing. And so it’s going to be interesting to see what happens going forward. Did you know we have a merch store?

[23:16] Now you can buy a select number of branded items through our shop on the website. All funds go to support the show and help us get better. Check it out at secularleft.us slash shop. The former Trump administration, was not a fan of the separation of church and state. In fact, they did a quite a lot to try to knock the wall down, such as appointing three justices, including one that they weren’t supposed to appoint but was stolen from President Obama. And one of the things they had was Betsy DeVos, who is part of the Amway fortune family in Michigan. And if you look up Hillsdale College, extreme, conservative college and so that’s, connected to the DeVos family. So they had Betsy DeVos who was the Secretary of Education during Trump’s administration, and one of the things that she got Trump to do was do an executive order to, order colleges and universities and public institutions to, not discriminate against religious groups on campus if they did not follow the particular college or institution’s non-discrimination policy.

[24:45] And they humorously entitled this new rule, the Free Inquiry Rule. And what that meant was, it was implemented in March of 2019. It says, Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.

[25:02] And known also as the Free Inquiry Rule, aimed to promote open debate on college and university campuses, with the goal of protecting First Amendment rights, the Free Inquiry Rule, strive to protect free speech and academic freedom. It actually didn’t do any of those things. Again, you know, most colleges have a non-discrimination policy for their student groups. If you want to be officially recognized by your college and university, which then allows you to partake in some of the funding for these college groups, activity funds, students pay an activity fund, and many of these official campus groups get this money. Some of these groups like Muslim’s group or Catholic group, they want to discriminate against people who want to be part of that group. And most colleges don’t let student groups do that. If if you go to a campus group that’s officially recognized and you want to join, they cannot stop you from joining. However, this rule meant to change that up. So in February in 2023, after pressure from religious freedom groups such as American Atheists, ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, got the Biden administration to propose a rescinding that portion of the regulation that was related to religious student groups.

[26:28] The administration stated the rule is unnecessary to protect the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion, and it has caused confusion about schools’ non-discrimination requirements, and has created an additional burden for the Department of Education. And so they opened it up to public comment on February 22nd, and they closed comments on March 24th. And so, from the information I hear, is that the Department of Education is going to rescind that rule. Now there’s a university, Cornell University in New York State, I believe. I believe it’s in New York State. They are a private university. Their student paper, the Cornell Sun, I believe it’s a student paper, had an article on April 11th talking about this change, this proposed change. And they headlined it, Biden-Harris reversal of Trump free inquiry rule evokes mixed emotions among professors and students. One of the things that they did mention is that they had a law professor and a professor of government talk about what brought this particular rule on. There is a Supreme Court case in 2010 called Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez.

[27:52] And there was a Christian Legal Society group at Hastings College of Law sued the school, because they would not give them official recognition because that chapter required members to attest their religious beliefs in writing before they were granted entry into the group. And Hastings refused to recognize the chapter because of the exclusionary behavior it challenged the school’s non-discrimination policy. They had an all-comers policy, meaning that student groups had to allow any student to participate regardless of their identity or beliefs. Many, many universities are like that. And so the Supreme Court ruled, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did the majority opinion, that Hastings could apply its all-comer policy to a religious organization as student groups could still convene without registering with the university. And that’s an important point.

[28:47] As the law professor says, student groups could exist without registering. They could even have access to spaces in the building and they have a variety of other benefits, but they wouldn’t get funding from the school. And so it doesn’t restrict their ability to form an organization, it just makes it more expensive. And then he went on to say that the government doesn’t have to subsidize their organization in ways that the government believes are discriminatory. And so, you know, and that’s a perfect note. If you’re going to have a student group on campus, officially recognized on campus, You need to abide by the obligations and regulations of all student groups.

[29:30] Just because you don’t like gay students, if you want to have an official campus group, you cannot deny gay students the opportunity to join your group. Now some of these religious groups at the time made the argument that, well, if we let in everybody, they’ll take over our group and then they’ll be what we don’t want them to be, you know, be like a Catholic group discriminating against LGBT and then all comers come in, LGBT people take over the group and it becomes a gay Catholic group. That doesn’t really happen in practice. And although the non-discrimination policies say that you can’t deny membership to people, it doesn’t say anything about leadership. So you can make all the rules and regulations you want about who runs your group, you just can’t prevent people from participating in the group. Kind of like our group, my humanist group that I’m part of, we get a tax benefit, we’re tax exempt. And so when we get certain services and materials, we have to abide by the rules and regulations of the people that provide this equipment and materials. Usually for non-profits is you can’t discriminate against people.

[30:58] There was a discount for I think it was might have been Zoom or something and I had to promise that it wouldn’t be used to discriminate against people. It’s not just colleges and universities. There’s a lot of things about that when you go into the social aspect of it. So this article that was published in Cornell University, they talk about that part, but when they interview actual people, actual religious people, people that are religious, that are in religious groups, they don’t talk about that part of it, that the importance of not discriminating against people. What they talk about is religious groups having relationships with other religious groups on campus and they say that this rule allowed that to happen and that’s not the case. That rule had nothing to do with whether or not their group existed and whether or not they could hang out with a different religious group. This rule had nothing to do with it. All this rule covered was, that if non-religious groups on campus got funding, they couldn’t discriminate against religious groups that discriminated against people.

[32:21] It’s that 360 circular logic that a lot of religious conservatives use. If you prevent me from discriminating against you, you are discriminating against me and violating my First Amendment rights. A lot of courts buy that bogus argument. The Supreme Court bought that bogus argument with the cake baker. And it’s a ridiculous argument to make. the Supreme Court ruled that sectarian schools, no, that churches were the same as casinos and liquor stores as essential businesses, that was a ridiculous conclusion. Because it’s just a building. It’s just a place that people gather. You don’t have to have a building, you don’t have to gather in groups to have a church, to practice your religion. your religion as an individual thing. You don’t need other people to do it. One of the things that somebody talks about in this Cornell article is similar to what I’m talking about, where religious people think that you just have to ignore secular reasoning for certain rules and regulations. And because if you don’t, if you don’t ignore those, then you’re…

[33:49] You’re infringing on my religious beliefs.” They had a student, Avery Bower, who is president of Cornell Republicans, express worry regarding how the university would treat religious student groups following the removal of the rule. And he said, I think the removal is a serious problem for the First Amendment, Bower said, and I also think Cornell has a troubling track record when it comes to addressing students of all faith and making sure that they feel that they’re getting equitable treatment. So I’m a bit concerned that there aren’t going to be federal protections for a lot of student groups.” And he cited the university’s handling of religious gatherings amid the COVID-19 restrictions. It says, One of the masking and physical distancing policies that Cornell enforced during the 2020-21 school year was that organizations had to limit gatherings to 10 or fewer people.

[34:43] Bauer explained, in the Jewish faith a quorum of 10 people is needed for certain religious obligations. The university COVID-19 restriction hindered many Jewish students from practicing aspects of the religion. When it came to the ability for students to be spiritually supported, the university was not there, Bauer said. I think without an added push from the Department of Education, in the event that there is some sort of earth-shattering crisis, I don’t think that the university has demonstrated that it’s going to be able to look out for its religious students and allow them to further practice their religion. And the problem with Bauer’s take on it was, so in the Jewish faith, the quorum of 10 people, they actually have to be in person?

[35:30] Physically in person? I don’t know about that because, you know, the Bible was written long before Zoom existed. And it still, in that rule of limiting gatherings to 10 or fewer people, That applied to all groups, not just religious groups.

[35:51] And so, and then he admits that people that it hindered many Jewish students from practicing aspects of the religion, but it didn’t prevent them from practicing their religion at all.

[36:07] So that’s the kind of arguments that a lot of these religious conservatives bring up, especially when they say it’s related to the masking and the COVID-19 restrictions, that for some reason religious people can’t practice their religion unless they are all together in person. And if you prevent them from doing so because if people get together and you catch a virus and you’re going to die, then it’s more important for you to practice your religion than to protect your health. That’s how this religious freedom has been twisted in the last few years. That’s what I wanted to mention about that. Pretty soon I’m pretty sure that this rule is going to get rescinded and we’ll go back to the way that the court case was decided that if a religious student group wants official recognition they have to abide by all the rules and obligations. You just can’t get money for your religious group and not have to have and not be accountable for any rules and regulations.

[37:17] And you can’t pick and choose which ones you want just because you you it would, go against your personal belief. Because you’re always free to create your campus group outside the university system. And so that’s why this rule needs to go away.

[37:40] Music.

[37:46] And finally in this episode I wanted to play an audio of a television show I was watching the other day and it may sound awfully familiar. Maybe some people that are my age will pick up on it right away. But I want you to listen. It’s a medical show. I want you to listen to what’s being talked about and see if it sounds familiar to you. Good morning, Mel. Hello, Mike. Good morning. You saw a youngster by the name of Dickens, Saturday afternoon. Eddie Dickens, about five years old. Yeah, he had the flu. Did he present anything unusual? No, strictly flu-like symptoms. Why? Is he back? Pneumonia? No, he has some neck pain and stiffness, some paralysis in the legs. Kosaki, the A7? That’s a possibility. We were considering paralytic polio. Polio? Do you know if he’s had the vaccine? I didn’t ask. I’ll find out.

[38:54] You know, Joe, it looks like I may have blown it. You ever seen polio before? No, no. I haven’t, no, I guess. Six years. So it’s really not surprising the diagnosis didn’t occur to you. He hasn’t had the vaccine, Jo. That’s the one. I asked you on Saturday, didn’t I? Give him something. Dr. Morton did all he could, Mrs. Dickens. You do know about polio vaccine, don’t you? Of course. Well, is there any reason why you didn’t want him to have it? Like religious grouch or something like that? No, it’s just that it seemed like… Well, why bother? There’s no more polio around anymore. They’ve got that whipped. Everybody knows that.

[39:55] All right, I want you to lift this leg for me. As high as you can. All right, Eddie. I want you to push against my hands as hard as you can. Come on, push harder. Is there any question in your mind, Kel? Mrs. Dickens. Eddie? Eddie? Eddie? Why don’t we go outside? Mom! What’s wrong with Mom? Is she sick, too? Mom, is she sick too? Dr. Early’s gonna take good care of her. All right, Eddie, you just take it easy, huh? I’ll be back in a minute.

[40:44] I’ll have to notify county health. There’ll be some impairment? We’ll do the best we can, but there’ll be some impairment. Not all of it 100% unnecessary. I just never crossed my mind. I can’t tell you how sorry I feel. Mike, it wouldn’t have made any difference. The vaccine is free, painless, and abundant. I wonder what she’s going to tell him when he’s old enough to understand. And that was an episode from the TV show Emergency. And that particular episode was Season 5, Episode 2. And it was broadcast in September of 1975.

[41:24] So you can see that vaccine hesitation has been a thing for a long time. Now in this case, the character who didn’t get her son a polio vaccine didn’t get it because she thought that polio had been eradicated. And that is, some people talk about, well why do we need to get measles? Measles has been eradicated and then measles comes back. Luckily, it’s not, and Dr. Early said, well, the reason you didn’t give it is because of religious reasons? See, that’s the thing about the United States, is that people can take an exemption from certain vaccines because of religious reasons. And to me, that’s just wrong. It just is wrong. I mean, if it’s something like polio or measles or chicken pox or something that’s going to to hurt other people.

[42:23] Then it should be a requirement and you should not be able to have an exemption because of religious reasons. And if you do, then you need to sign a paper and take it with you, so that if anybody gets sick, they know that you are not vaccinated, and then you either get isolated or sent home if you’re a kid at school, and then you can’t go to school until the infection rate subsides. You should have your life curtailed because you chose not to get a vaccine. Or if you’re a parent, your kid’s life should get curtailed because you did not choose to get a particular vaccine. I think medical exemptions for religion is wrong and personal conscience is wrong. But, as long as it exists, then we need to have another method that allows people to know who it is that’s not vaccinated, so that it doesn’t cause trouble and hurt other people.

[43:27] But I just thought that that clip was interesting and I wanted to play it today. Thank you for listening to this episode. You can check out more information, including links to sources used, in our show notes on, our website at secularleft.us. Secular Left is hosted, written and produced by Doug Berger and he is solely responsible for the content. Send us your comments either using the contact form on the website or by sending us a note, at comments at secularleft.us. Our theme music is dank and nasty, composed using Amplify Studio.

[44:19] Music.

Transcript is machine generated, lightly edited, and approximate to what was recorded

Secular Left © 2022 is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.


Produced, written, and edited by Doug Berger

Our theme music is “Dank & Nasty” Composed using Ampify Studio

Doug Written by:

Founder, editor and host of Secular Left - please be gentle For media inquiries see our "About" page.