The media insists that it’s raining measles and everyone should get the MMR vaccine, made by Merck, to protect themselves.

Even Obama has publicly stated, “those who don’t get their shots can pose a risk to infants and other people who can’t get vaccinated.”
He assures parents that vaccine science is “pretty indisputable.”
What science is he looking at?

First of all, as a non-vaccinated person, you’re more likely to die from an ant bite than you are from measles.This is true only because vaccination has reduced the measles rate to very low levels. Would an ant bite give you encephalitis, pneumonia, ear infections or diarrhea. Measles does, and is far more infectious than ant bites, so you are more likely to be affected.
Are you afraid of ants?

Then you shouldn’t be afraid of measles or the unvaccinated.

Still though, millions of parents are frothing at the mouth, enraged at parents who choose not to vaccinate, supposedly risking herd immunity. The bigots among them want to sue the family who refuses to accept pharmaceutical propaganda and questions vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Yet, I can sue you if you start a bonfire on your property, and it consumes my house. If you don't want to vaccinate, then you should be prepared to take responsibility for your decision, not throw it onto innocent bystanders.
Well, you can try and sue me.

I have three unvaccinated kids So you do take advantage of herd immunity, even though you don't believe in it! (along with a 1986 BMW and a much newer, 1999 Toyota 4-Runner with really nice tires – big time assets for the litigious).

Unlike working with the media, at least I’d be able to show all the facts in a courtroom.

I’d start by proving that herd immunity is a failed hypothesis and should never be used to divide parents or rationalize the blind use of vaccines.
Fortunately, herd immunity is very easy to test: Find a vaccinated herd and monitor them for infection.
This has been done. Take a look at the polio statistics before the introduction of vaccination for this disease, and after. Take a look at the incidence of measles before and after the introduction of vaccination for this disease.
Repeat.

That’s science: The observation of reproducible results

Observing the MMR vaccinated herd, we find that they get sick, often. The New England Journal of Medicine published that, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.”
Interestingly, you fail to mention that none of the 1732 students who were seropositive for measles antibodies (attained through immunization) got measles, while of 74 seronegative vaccinated students (immunization failure rate of about 4%), 14 got the disease. That's less than one percent actually failed to react to the immunization and got sick. That study showed that a second booster markedly increased antibody levels, but unfortunately the authors didn't describe whether there was a correlation between second booster and susceptibility to measles: the only correlation was with antibody titer. The authors conclude that herd immunity is not surefire. All the more reason, IMHO, to obtain immunization.

A thorough investigation, as outlined in my book, Over-The-Counter Natural Cures, shows how this same scenario has happened worldwide, numerous times. Even naturally acquired immunity fails to “protect the herd!” I hope the book contains better logic and fact citing than on display here.

This failure of herd immunity was also stressed by the medical journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases. Warning against using the vaccine for protection, they wrote, “Other problems arise because herd immunity is not the same as biologic (immunologic) immunity; individuals protected only by indirect herd effects remain fully susceptible to infection, should they ever be exposed.”
Could you provide me with this citation. As stated, it seems to be a ringing endorsement for universal vaccination
Translation, “Herd immunity can’t protect you. Only your immune system can.”

Unfortunately, the MMR vaccine won’t bolster your immune system. It’s a complete failure. That science is indisputable and proven both in the lab and the courtroom. Interesting what you call "indisputable and proven". The Merck suit has not been adjudicated, so it is an allegation, not "indisputable and proven". Time will tell. While waiting you might want to read the full text of the report about the Corpus Christie outbreak you described earlier, which showed that, despite you assertion that the "MMR vaccine won't bolster your immune system", they actually found a successful immunization rate of 99.2%. I'd say that what was "indisputable and proven" is that immunization does work, and that herd immunization is not an absolute protection. However, in a well-immunized herd the few who cannot be immunized do receive a level of protection above that obtained by hoping for the best.

In 2012, a class action lawsuit —United States v. Merck & Co. and Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. – two virologists from Merck proved that the drug giant “falsified testing of the efficacy of the drug and misstated the drug’s efficacy to the government as having a 95 percent efficacy rate.”

In the court trial, it was discovered that, “Merck incorporated the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck’s fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Could you please provide me with the citation for this. To my knowledge, the case has not been heard and adjudicated yet. No court trial=no court findings.

Having reached the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”).”

The CDC, along with Obama and the media need to check their facts better. After all, it’s a child’s life we’re talking about here!

It gets worse.

Following the trail of the the government “science” leads you to CDC researcher Poul Thorsen. He was indicted by the Department of Justice for vaccine research fraud and money laundering. He is currently on the Office of the Inspector Generals most wanted list.

There’s very little to debate when you have the facts.

Can't disagree with you there, but you don't have the facts. Yes, Thorsen is a fraudster first class, but there are other studies (for example, this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x/full) and many, many others that have demonstrated that there is no demonstrable link between the measles vaccine and autism.

The unvaccinated parents have justifiable concerns to avoid shots. But, the vaccinated, even more so.

One brave father stepped forward to show pictures of his 15 month old son playing with his tool box and scrambling through the house to use them on furniture and toys. Days later he received his MMR shot. 18 years later, he’s still in diapers and learning to speak.
Even you can't believe that this proves anything at all. It is just as likely (if not more likely) that toxins in the toolbox caused the child's autism. In fact, the probability is that neither caused this sad event.
I’ll risk measles any day over Merck’s bullshit science.

When herd immunity and vaccines are proven failures, you can’t use them as evidence to encourage vaccination or to sue a family who refuses to accept the flawed status-quo perpetuated by the pharmaceutically compliant politicians and the media.
So...when vaccination are proven success (as they have been despite your bald and misdirected assertions), can you use them as evidence to encourage vaccination, or to sue a family whose unvaccinated child developed a preventable disease that was then transmitted to a not-yet-vaccinated infant? Do the parents bear no responsibility?