Thought this was interesting. Zero Hedge story on 'Q'. Oddly, since I looked yesterday showed 17 shares both times.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/introduction-q

So glad to see reporting on Q that is good.

I have just started digging on the politicians who are pushing mandated vaccines and other bills that will increase vaccination without controls by parents or others concerned with safety.

Just like MSM has their 4am talking points, it sure looks like the polititcans (particularly) Democrats are fast tracking legislation along several lines: Getting people here illegally to be able to vote for them, giving access to children for nefarious purposes (vaccination, sexual abuse, etc), increasing abortions even to the point of actual infanticide and "gun control".

Here's an example of a politician that seems to be selling access to children. Keri Ingle She's a Missouri Democrat "Minority Whip" in the legislature according to web site. She sits on the "Children and Families Committee" as well as the "Joint Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect". She has background in adoptions and social work.

If you examine the legislation she's involved with I think there is a definite, but subtle agenda. She wants children to be able to consent to vaccination. She wants to mandate reporting of abuse and neglect when the conditions seem "reasonable" for it (I'm paraphrasing but the summary I read would seem to make it mandatory to report certain conditions absent actual, verifiable abuse)

Would it become "abuse" or "neglect" to decline a state mandated vaccine? Though a parent may not lose custody for making a medical decision contrary to state mandates it seems they could be reported, perhaps.

Finally, one of the bills she's involved with seems to indicate that it would be "discrimination" to deny adoption/foster care to a home based on sexual characteristics of a person in the home. My thinking on this is that it would make it extremely difficult to protect a foster child from being taken into a home by people who want to abuse them.

Selling access to children is highly profitable for the DS. When I look at the information on this politician her associations seem to indicate the possibility that she's giving the veneer of "Its for the children" while actually putting families at risk. Her association with government adoptions is troubling, imo.

https://house.mo.gov/MemberDetails.aspx?year=2020&code=R&district=035