Day: February 21, 2019

CELEBRATING PERVERSION: LANSDALE, PENNSYLVANIA MAYOR TO ISSUE “INCLUSION DAY” PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECENT “DRAG QUEEN STORY FUN TIME”

LGBTQP INDOCTRINATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

lansdale-pa-mayor-february-2-inclusion-day-drag-queen-story-fun-time-lgbtqp
ANNIE “CHRIST”
MAYOR GARRY HERBERT, CENTER:
Mayor Herbert Ribbon Cutting for new Lansdale Care and Rehab
Lansdale Mayor Garry Herbert says ‘Time to start stepping up’
LANSDALE, PENNSYLVANIA MAYOR TO ISSUE “INCLUSION DAY” PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECENT “DRAG QUEEN STORY FUN TIME”
BY HEATHER CLARK
 republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
LANSDALE, Pa. — The mayor of Lansdale, Pennsylvania has agreed to issue a proclamation marking every Feb. 2 as “Inclusion Day” in commemoration of a recent “Drag Queen Story Fun Time” featuring the drag queen “Annie Christ”—a play-on-words of “anti-Christ.” The event generated both support and protest.
Mayor Garry Herbert’s decision is reportedly in response to a petition launched by event supporters urging him to call the day “Annie’s Day” in honor of “Annie Christ.”
“I was approached with a petition from community members asking to commemorate the day where Lansdale showed its dedication to inclusion and diversity,” Herbert told North Penn Now. “After speaking with staff, we agreed to declare Feb. 2 as ‘Inclusion Day in Lansdale,’ where we will celebrate our diversity and our commitment to that cause.”
As previously reported, Eric Torres of Philadelphia chose the name “Annie Christ” for his stage name out of his “love of gothic themes, horror movies, and bands such as NIN.” His Instagram page features a mix of photos from his everyday life as Eric—such as his interest in mudding—and his alter persona as a drag performer—some of which are gory, some with grandiose wigs and makeup, and one where Torres painted an upside down cross on his forehead.
One video posted to YouTube shows “Annie Christ” performing to the song “You Can Touch My [Breasts],” with men in attendance reaching out and doing so.
Earlier this month, he read the books “Naked Mole Rat Gets Dressed” and “Sparkle Boy” to children during “Drag Queen Story Fun Time,” an event that he himself had scheduled at the Lansdale Public Library.
Library director Tom Meyer noted that there had been calls of complaint prior to the story time, but ultimately decided to allow the event to proceed as “a lot of the parents are interested in … the message of the story time about acceptance and inclusion.” He also pointed to the library’s policies, which allow the meeting room to be used by the public.
“Some people ask me, ‘Why don’t you have a Bible story time?’ We’ve done that. There just was no protest and no big deal about it. We’re here for the whole community,” he told CBS Philadelphia.
The “Drag Queen Story Fun Time” generated both protest and counter-protest, with some praying, singing, preaching or holding signs such as “Love speaks the truth; God’s word is the only truth,” “God made them male and female” and “Woe to those who quarrel with their maker,” the last two quoting from Genesis 1:27 and Isaiah 45:9.
A petition had also been launched expressing concern that the borough “is bringing perversion from the nightclubs and sexually charged pride parades into the library with children” and that “[t]rusted officials and library staff are promoting a foul-mouthed adult entertainer named “Annie Christ” (a hateful attack on Christianity) as a role model to our small children.”
Counter-protestors, or supporters of the event, held signs outside such as “Love thy neighbor,” “Children need models, not critics,” and “It’s never too late to give up your prejudices.”
“I’m actually a boy in a dress with a really, really big wig on and a lot of makeup,” Torres, who also used the event as a food drive in light of the concerns, told the children gathered.
Supporters went on to launch a petition of their own, calling for Feb. 2 to be deemed “Annie’s Day.”
“On February 2nd 2019, Drag Queen Miss Annie read stories of acceptance, love, and inclusion at the Lansdale Public Library. When word got out, protesters flocked to the internet to try to put a stop to the story time. They created pages of hate and tried to distract the public from the good Miss Annie was trying to accomplish,” the petition claimed.
“I propose we make February 2nd ‘Miss Annie Day’ or ‘Annie’s Day’ where we celebrate the love, acceptance, and charity our little town displayed,” it stated. “This is a day that will forever live in the town’s history. It is a day Lansdale showed how diverse and amazing it is to the entire country.”
While officials did not heed the former petition, Hebert has now responded to the latter and has stated that he will issue a proclamation deeming Feb. 2 “Inclusion Day.” He plans to read his decree during the next business meeting on March 20, according to North Penn Now.
Torres has also announced that “[e]very year on Feb. 2, I plan on hosting an amazing event that will celebrate acceptance and diversity along with a food drive to continue to help our town become the best in Pennsylvania!”
However, local resident Steve Piotrowski, who organized the initial prayer rally outside of the event, expressed disappointment that the borough has chosen to celebrate sin. He released a statement sharing the gospel with those who would read his words, noting that the right kind of inclusion is inclusion in the kingdom of God—and there are conditions for entry.
“Jesus was and is without sin, yet He has compassion for sinners. As we reach out to those in LGBT community, we strive to do so with a similar heart. What could be more heartbreaking than for a person made in God’s image to remain lost in their sin and forever separated from the love of God?” Piotrowski asked. “We want others to be ‘included’ in the Kingdom of God, and we hope to continue to reach lost souls.”
“The good news for a gay man or woman is the same good news for a straight man or woman. The Lord Jesus Christ died for all types of sins for all types of sinners,” he said. “I am asking Annie Christ, along with Mayor Garry Herbert and their supporters to not doubt the power of Christ. Trust in God’s wisdom and His power, not your own.”
Piotrowski also opined that he finds “Inclusion Day” to be hypocritical because the opinions of only some residents will actually be included, and those who believe God’s word will be excluded.
“This is a day of hate against God,” he stated. “I encourage everyone to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are calling the mayor and every official who supports this to repentance.”
As previously reported, the Bible teaches that all men are in the same predicament: All are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God and being utterly incapable of changing themselves. It is why Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must be regenerated by the second birth, and pass from spiritual death into spiritual life, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’
2 Corinthians 5 also outlines, “For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again.”
_____________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST: 


WHAT TAXING THE RICH DID TO ELIZABETH WARREN’S AND ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ’S STATES

WHAT TAXING THE RICH DID TO ELIZABETH WARREN’S AND ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ’S STATES

They wrecked Massachusetts and New York, 

now they want to wreck America

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272867/what-taxing-rich-did-elizabeth-warren-and-daniel-greenfield; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Tax time is usually an unhappy time for taxpayers, but a joyous time for government employees and the welfare class that gets more in “refunds” than it ever pays in taxes.
But this year, tax time is a depressing time for the taxmasters in the big blue states.
Blue states use high taxes to finance their frivolous spending. But this year, the money just isn’t there even as House and Senate lefties from big blue states tout new plans to soak the rich.
Senator Elizabeth Warren made headlines by building her 2020 campaign around a “wealth tax”.
Warren called it, “the ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax” and claimed that it only “applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50 million”. That’s convenient because the millionaire class warrior’s own estimated net worth tops out at around $10 million. When millionaires like Elizabeth Warren talk about taxing wealth, they mean the wealth of the millionaires who are wealthier than they are.
But over in Warren’s Taxachusetts, soaking the rich isn’t keeping the blue state model afloat.
Massachusetts experienced a January tax revenue shortfall of $195 million. That’s down 6% from 2018. And January is the cold, snowy month that is meant to account for 10% of the revenues for the year.
December was none too cheerful either.
“While most major categories of revenue continue to perform generally as expected, Massachusetts, like a number of other states, experienced below-benchmark performance in the category of non-withheld income in both December and January, particularly in individual estimated payments,” the head of the Department of Revenue announced.
“As serious as a heart attack,” New York’s Governor Cuomo was much less restrained when discussing New York’s $2.3 billion plus revenue shortfall.
“This is the most serious revenue shock the state has faced in many years,” State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli warned.
 “Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich. We did that. God forbid the rich leave,” Cuomo groused, noting that the 1% of wealthy tax filers also pay almost half the state’s income taxes. But, after tax reform, many of the rich were fleeing. Florida, with no income tax, was a commonplace destination.
New York lost almost 50,000 people last year. Florida gained over 300,000 people.
“I want to personally welcome anyone escaping high tax states to join the hundreds of thousands of their former neighbors who have already moved to Florida,” Governor Rick Scott announced last year.
“For richer people, your tax liability could have gone up now $100-, $200-, $300,000,” Governor Cuomo whined. “And there is a tipping point where people say, ‘I love New York, but to spend another $300,000 in taxes? I’ll move.’”
In the Occupy Wall Street era, Mayor Bloomberg had warned about the danger of tax hikes. “One percent of the households that file in this city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In the city, that’s something like 40,000 people. If a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral.”
His successor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, is a lazy Marxist and clueless about economics. “Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world,” he declared in his State of the City address. “There’s plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.”
The ‘wrong hands’ being any hands other than his pudgy manicured fingertips.
These days he’s singing a different tune.
In February, a doleful De Blasio declared that the city expects to see $935 million less in income tax revenue. That 7% drop is going to make New York City’s $92 billion budget, up $3 billion since last year, a lot more challenging. And, for the first time ever, he demanded that city agencies cut three-quarters of a billion, even as he doubled down on welfare to polish his progressive image for a presidential run.
“We have some tough choices up ahead,” he warned.
Sorry, “brothers and sisters”, suddenly there wasn’t “plenty of money in the city” anymore.
Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who made headlines with a 70% tax rate, paying attention to her own backyard? And by that, I don’t mean New York City. The fake “Girl from the Bronx” is actually from one of the wealthiest suburbs in the country with the highest property taxes in the country. Westchester took a downgrade from its AAA rating back in the fall. Another downgrade may hit it within two years.
Home prices are falling as tax reform is hammering Westchester’s deeply flawed economic strategy. And the flawed blue state economic strategy of tax happy enclaves around the country.
New Jersey’s Department of the Treasury noted a 35% tax revenue fall. California State Controller Betty Yee reported a $2.5 billion revenue shortfall. Tax reform is in the wind. And it’s blowing away the blues.
The blue state model hollowed out the greatest cities in America by making them unlivable for the middle class. High taxes in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and countless other cities have turned them into enclaves in which you either need to be rich or on welfare to be able to live in them. And that has made the blue state model precariously dependent on a small and very wealthy tax base.
Lefty politicians solve everything by spending more money and raising taxes on the wealthy. Tax reform made that an unsustainable strategy because, suddenly, red state taxpayers weren’t covering blue state tax bills. And that revealed just how hollow and vulnerable the blue state economic model really is.
When you don’t have a middle class, then the tax burden falls on a very small and mobile population. Unlike the middle class, which is tethered more tightly to jobs and single homes, the sorts of people that progressives are obsessed with taxing are a less stable tax base because they are fewer and freer.
The flip side of class warfare is that your targets can fight back by leaving and leaving you with nothing.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other blue staters want to take the same failed model nationwide. Their fantasies of a massive national tax hike try to escape the limitations of tax reform by imposing taxes that no one can escape by moving to Florida. Lefties love telling us that we should learn from Europe.
It’s a pity that they never do.
France tried out a tax on the ‘super-rich’. And they packed up and left. The failed state which has the highest tax rates in the modern world is losing its tax base. 10,000 millionaires left France in 2015. 6% of Parisian millionaires got out. 12,000 millionaires left in 2016. Many moved to the US and to the UK.
Socialists, as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher had observed, “always run out of other people’s money.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to take the same high taxes that devastated Massachusetts and New York nationwide. The blue state model wrecked blue states.
Now the wreckers of Massachusetts and New York want to wreck America.

MUSLIM REP. RASHIDA TLAIB TO SPEAK ALONG WITH ANTI-SEMITIC IMAM AT HAMAS-LINKED CAIR EVENT

MUSLIM REP. RASHIDA TLAIB TO SPEAK ALONG WITH ANTI-SEMITIC IMAM AT HAMAS-LINKED CAIR EVENT
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/muslim-rep-rashida-tlaib-to-speak-along-with-anti-semitic-imam-at-hamas-linked-cair-event; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It’s no surprise that this is where Tlaib’s sympathies lie. The worst aspect of this is that Tlaib will suffer no consequences whatsoever for associating with Hamas-linked CAIR or her fellow anti-Semite Omar Suleiman, who is the imam responsible for compelling Google to bury all content critical of Islam. 
For the Left and the Democrats today, Jew-hatred is mainstream, and Hamas is an ally.
“Rashida Tlaib joins extremist imam on CAIR speaking circuit,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, February 19, 2019:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., a self-proclaimed liberal progressive, will speak alongside an extremist imam at an event hosted by the Michigan chapter of the terror-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) next month. The Hamas-connected outfit is infamously known for being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history.
On March 17, Rep. Tlaib will join Omar Suleiman, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked imam who has a long history of anti-LGBT, anti-woman, and anti-Semitic remarks, at the fundraising event in Detroit. Tickets will cost $50 per person, or $500 to reserve a table.
Imam Suleiman has referred to homosexuality as a “disease” and a “repugnant shameless sin” that he believes is justifiable to punish by death. Additionally, the radical imam has endorsed mandatory hijabs for all women, even when they are around family members. In a 2012 sermon, he warned that women who do not wear a full hijab risk an incestous relationship with their family members. In that address, he added that women who commit adultery run the risk of being honor-killed by their family members, without condemning the practice of honor killing. On the foreign policy front, Suleiman regularly cheers on Hamas-led violent Islamist uprisings against Israel in calling for the elimination of the Jewish state.
Dawud Walid, the longtime CAIR-Michigan director who is presiding over the event, also has a long history of extremist rhetoric. At a 2012 sermon at a mosque in Michigan, he described Jews as enemies of Islam who have “incurred the wrath of Allah.” Moreover, Walid has endorsed blasphemy laws that call for violent repercussions for engaging in criticism of Islam or Muhammad….
Tlaib has become a regular on the CAIR circuit. In February, she headlined a CAIR-Chicago fundraiser. In January, she spoke at a CAIR event in which she was introduced by an avowed supporter of the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas….

MUSLIM MEMBER OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CLAIMS “ISLAM REVERES JUDAISM, THE TORAH, MOSES & THE JEWISH PEOPLE”

MUSLIM MEMBER OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CLAIMS “ISLAM REVERES JUDAISM, THE TORAH, MOSES & THE JEWISH PEOPLE”
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/muslim-member-of-council-on-foreign-relations-claims-islam-reveres-judaism-the-torah-moses-and-the-jewish-people; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Qanta A. Ahmed “is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Committee on Combating Contemporary Anti-Semitism Through Testimony at the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation.” Here she claims that “Islam reveres Judaism, the Torah, Moses and the Jewish people as legitimate believers, and Jerusalem as belonging only to the Jews — all documented within the Quran.”
Unfortunately, none of that is true. There is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, rooted in the Qur’an. The Qur’an puts forward a clear, consistent image of the Jews: they are scheming, treacherous liars and the most dangerous enemies of the Muslims.
The Qur’an presents Muhammad as the last and greatest in the line of Biblical prophets, preaching a message identical to theirs. The identical character of their messages may seem odd to those who know very well that the Qur’an’s contents are quite different in character from those of the Bible, but the Qur’an has an ingenious explanation for this: the original message of all the Biblical prophets was Islam, and they were all Muslims. Only later did their followers corrupt their messages to create Judaism and Christianity.
Consequently, in the Qur’an, Abraham is not a Jew or a Christian, but a Muslim (3:67); his message was identical to Muhammad’s. The Islamic claim is that the authentic Torah actually commands Jews to follow Muhammad and recognize his prophecy. Those who refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet are, in the Muslim view, rejecting both Moses and the prophecies of the Torah. It is no surprise, then, that in the Qur’an both David and Jesus curse the disbelieving Jews for their disobedience (5:78).
Yet of course, Torah-observant Jews did not and do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, and this, according to Islamic tradition, enraged the prophet of Islam during his lifetime. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad initially appealed energetically to the Jews, hoping they would accept his prophetic status. He even had the Muslims imitate the Jews by facing Jerusalem for prayers, and he adopted for the Muslims the Jews’ prohibition of pork. But he was infuriated when the Jews rejected him, and Allah shared his fury in Qur’anic revelation: “And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know!” (2:101).
Another Jewish leader noted that “no covenant was ever made with us about Muhammad.” Allah again responded through his Prophet: “Is it ever so that when they make a covenant a party of them set it aside? The truth is, most of them do not believe” (2:100). In fact, Allah gave food laws to the Jews because of their “wrongdoing,” and “for their turning many from the way of Allah” (4:160), and by doing so, “repaid them for their injustice” (6:146). Some Jews are “avid listeners to falsehood” who “distort words beyond their usages.” These are “the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts,” and they will be punished not just in hellfire but in this life as well: “For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (5:41).
Jews dare to deny divine revelation, claiming that “Allah did not reveal to a human being anything,” to which Muhammad is told to respond, “Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing some of it and concealing much” (6:91).
Muslims should not get close to such people: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends of one another. And whoever is a friend to them among you, indeed, he is of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people” (5:51). It would hardly be appropriate for Muslims to act peaceably toward the Jews when the Jews, according to the Qur’an, are prone to war – especially against Muslims. Whenever the Jews “kindle the fire of war,” says the Qur’an, “Allah extinguishes it” (5:64).
Ultimately, Allah transforms disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (2:63-66; 5:59-60; 7:166). While the Qur’an says that Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110), the unbelievers are “like livestock” (7:179). “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not believe” (8:55).
The Jews also “strive to do mischief on earth” – that is, fasaad, for which the punishment is specified in Qur’an 5:33: “they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”
The rebellion against Allah that has resulted in the Jews’ degradation – the “terrible agony” that those who have rejected Islam are to feel “in this world” as well as in the next (3:56) – is a frequent preoccupation of the Qur’an. Departing from his earlier tendency to appeal to the Jews as the authorities on what Allah had revealed, Muhammad began to criticize them for concealing parts of that revelation. The Qur’an several times criticizes Jews for refusing to follow Muhammad, asking, “Why don’t the Jews’ rabbis stop their evil behavior?” (5:63)
Someone who believes in the Qur’an as the perfect and eternal word of Allah, and the authentic Hadith as the records of the statements and actions of the man whom the Qur’an designates as the “excellent example” (33:21) for Muslims to emulate will accordingly form a negative view of Jews.
How could such a believing Muslim ever accept being friends and neighbors with “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers”? How can he carry out good-faith negotiations for peace with people who fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181)? How can he trust those who claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64) and who are “avid listeners to falsehood” and “distort words beyond their usages” (5:41)?
A pious and knowledgeable Muslim will discover in his Qur’an that the Jews are busy hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78). They staged rebellion against the prophets and rejected their guidance (2:55), and even killed them (2:61). They prefer their own interests to the teachings of Muhammad (2:87). They wish evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109), and even feel pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120). They’re arrogant about their status as Allah’s beloved people (5:18) while devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion (4:46); and killing the prophets (2:61). They’re merciless and heartless (2:74); unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); cowardly (59:13-14) and miserly (4:53). They are under Allah’s curse (4:46, 9:30).
An informed and committed believer will look at the Jews, and in particular at Zionism and the State of Israel, and not see a struggle over land or boundaries that can be solved through negotiations if a sufficient amount of good will exists on both sides. Such a believer is much more likely to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an eschatological struggle against the great spiritual enemies of the Muslims, as the Jews are designated in the Qur’an: “You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews…” (5:82)
The Qur’an’s condemnations of the Jews are repeatedly sweeping: the Muslim holy book refers again and again to “the Jews,” not simply to one party among them. The Qur’an does include the Jews (along with “Christians and Sabeans”) among those who “will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve” (2:62), but mainstream Muslim commentators are not inclined to see this as an indication of divine pluralism. The Qur’an translators Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and Muhammad Asad all add parenthetical glosses that make the passage mean that the Jews referred to in this passage will be saved only if they become Muslims. Qur’an.com adds “before Prophet Muhammad” in brackets after “Jews or Christians or Sabeans,” making it clear that those three could only be saved as such before the advent of Islam, but now they must convert to Islam to be saved.
What’s more, the Qur’an also says that “they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of hell, abiding eternally in it. Those are the most vile of created beings.” (98:6) Those who “disbelieved among the People of the Book” are the Jews and Christians who did not convert to Islam.
And Islamic tradition is no kinder to the Jews. The Hadith, reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds that, if deemed authentic by Islamic scholars, are normative for Islamic law, contain a great deal of anti-Semitic material. In one, as if apes and pigs weren’t bad enough, Muhammad says that a group of Jews “assumed the shape of rats.” In another, he exclaims: “May Allah’s curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”
Islam’s most frequently repeated prayer is a passage from the Qur’an in which the believers ask Allah: “Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom you have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked anger or of those who are astray.” (1:6-7) Muhammad explains: “The Jews are those who Allah is angry with, and the Christians have strayed.”
The most notorious anti-Semitic passage in all of the Hadith is the one in which Muhammad is made to prophesy that Muslims will bring about the End Times by killing Jews wholesale: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.’”
This passage gives all the anti-Semitism in Islam an edge of menace. Muslims are taught in their holiest books not just to despise and mistrust Jews, but that they are doing a good and virtuous deed if they kill them, a deed that will bring about the consummation of all things and the dawning of eternal justice for mankind.
As for Qanta Ahmed’s claim that the Qur’an says Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, it is based primarily upon Qur’an 5:21, in which Moses declares, “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah has assigned to you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then you will be overthrown, to your own ruin.” One might wonder why, if this exegesis is correct, the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia manifests such hostility to Israel. Why have so few Muslims ever noticed that Allah actually wants the Jews to possess the Land of Israel? One reason may be that they read such Qur’anic passages as 2:61, which says that some Jews who rebelled against Moses were “covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.”
The Qur’an also says the Jews broke whatever covenant with Allah they had: “And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. You will not cease to discover treachery from all except a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loves the kindly” (5:13).
Being thus accursed according to the Qur’an, the Jews are not the legitimate inheritors of the promise made in Qur’an 5:21. The ones who are the inheritors of that promise are those who have remained faithful to Allah – the Muslims – not those whom he has accursed – the Jews.
Does Qanta Ahmed know all this, and doesn’t want us to know it? Or is she claiming to be an expert on “Islamism” without being familiar with this material?
“OPINION: Ilhan Omar Brings Shame To American Muslims,” by Qanta Ahmed, Daily Caller, February 14, 2019:
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), an American Muslim of Somali origin, shames American Muslims with the anti-Semitism she has brought to Congress.
As a naturalized American and a Muslim woman myself, it was gratifying to see the first Muslim women in American history elected to Congress inaugurated this year….
But as a Muslim devoted to combatting contemporary anti-Semitism by serving within the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation, I am deeply dismayed to see Omar brandished anti-Semitic beliefs almost immediately after assuming office. They are beliefs she has held for years. (Leaders of Minnesota’s Jewish community approached her prior to her election to express deep concern regarding her anti-Semitic leanings)….
Worse, as a Muslim expert in Islamism, I recognize her anti-Semitism as emblematic of deep Islamist sympathies. Political scientists identify anti-Semitism clearly circumscribed within Islamist ideologies and charters to consistently lionize a new Islamist anti-Semitism as a central Islamist tenet contingent on the extinction of the Jewish people. Her affiliation with Islamists must be examined….
For Muslims in America, we are faced with the realization that Muslim anti-Semites claim to speak for our Islamic faith and our Muslim identity. They invite hostility to our own communities, and more misunderstanding of Islam within America. This is despite the reality that Islam reveres Judaism, the Torah, Moses and the Jewish people as legitimate believers, and Jerusalem as belonging only to the Jews — all documented within the Quran. The Quran’s truths will go unknown in the shadow of Muslim congresswomen spewing anti-Semitism and all Muslims will be thus branded anti-Semites….

DELAWARE (AB)NORMAL: ‘CREEPY UNCLE JOE’ (BIDEN) SET TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR PRESIDENT~WANT TO ELECT A SEXUAL PREDATOR AGAIN?

“Biden is apparently unaware that grabbing on young women and children and whispering in their ear while on camera isn’t the best optics for a potential future President of the United States.”
'Creepy Uncle Joe' Set to Announce Run For President



DELAWARE (AB)NORMAL: ‘CREEPY UNCLE JOE’ (BIDEN) SET TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR PRESIDENT~
WANT TO ELECT A SEXUAL PREDATOR AGAIN?

Will Democrats stay silent on questions surrounding Biden’s behavior around women in era of #MeToo?

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/creepy-uncle-joe-set-to-announce-run-for-president/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Joe Biden is on the verge of announcing his run for president, according to multiple sources close to the former Vice President, a development that will resurrect questions about Biden’s behavior around women in the era of #MeToo.
ABC News reports that according to Robert Wolf, a top Democratic donor and former economic adviser to former President Barack Obama who has known Biden for over a decade, Biden is 90% sure of running for president.
“He feels he’s coming off an incredible midterm and he’s sitting in the best position to take on [President Donald] Trump across the country,” said Wolf.
Sen. Diane Feinstein also met with Biden last week and confirmed that she expected him to announce his candidacy.
“We are all anticipating it is not ‘if’ but ‘when’ he announces,” said James Smith, who ran for governor of South Carolina in 2018 and has been in recent touch with Biden’s staff.
With Bernie Sanders now having announced his candidacy, expect Biden, who routinely tops polls of likely Democratic victors, to quickly follow suit.
However, just as the Hollywood Access tape shortly before the election bolstered Democrats’ narrative that Donald Trump was a creep around women, Biden’s on-camera behavior towards females spanning a vast age range is arguably much worse.
Highlighting the viral nature of the issue, one 2017 Twitter thread on the subject which accused Biden of being a “sexual predator” received over 36,000 retweets.
Biden’s inappropriate behavior is by no means solely a right-wing obsession.
A February 2015 Washington Post article entitled What are we going to do about Creepy Uncle Joe Biden? highlighted the numerous instances of Biden putting his arms around women, many of whom looked incredibly uncomfortable at being accosted.
The Huffington Post also published an article (subsequently deleted) that acknowledged Biden running for president would be a “terrible idea in a post-Weinstein America”.
Back in November 2017, an ex-Secret Service agent even claimed that Biden engaged in “Weinstein-level” sexual assault and that he would walk around the VP residence late at night completely naked.
The agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed that Biden “would mess with every single woman or teen,” and that a Christmas get-together at the VP’s house had to be canceled “because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriends’ asses.”
As the video above documents, Biden is apparently unaware that grabbing on young women and children and whispering in their ear while on camera isn’t the best optics for a potential future President of the United States.
________________________________________________________
Biden does it in front of us! ‘Outraged’ Dems won’t talk ...

SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY RULES AGAINST CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules Against Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY RULES AGAINST 
CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

Decision a victory against states imposing excessive fines, seizure of property

BY BEN WARREN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/scotus-unanimously-rules-against-civil-asset-forfeiture/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Supreme Court unanimously curbed the power of local governments to seize private property.
The nation’s highest court invoked the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines in Wednesday’s 9-0 decision, according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion.
“Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties,” said Ginsburg. “They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
“They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue.”
The ruling stems from an Indiana case where the local court seized a man’s $42,000 Land Rover after he pleaded guilty to a crime that had the maximum fine of $10,000, one-fourth the value of the vehicle.
Prosecutors reportedly wanted to take the vehicle because they claimed the man used it to transport drugs.
Interestingly, Justice Clarance Thomas reached the same conclusion as Ginsburg but disagreed with her rationale.
“I cannot agree with the route the Court takes to reach this conclusion,” said Thomas. “I would hold that the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The case went to the Supreme Court in the first place because the Indiana court reportedly refused to extend the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines to a local level.
As such, this is the first time the court has applied the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines at the state level, according to Fox News.
The historical importance of the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were referenced in the decision.

SWAMPY: OCASIO-CORTEZ REPORTEDLY USED PAC TO FUNNEL CASH TO BOYFRIEND

Swampy: Ocasio-Cortez Reportedly Used PAC To Funnel Cash To Boyfriend
SWAMPY: OCASIO-CORTEZ REPORTEDLY USED PAC 
TO FUNNEL CASH TO BOYFRIEND

PAC likely served as pass-through to mitigate campaign’s mounting debt, reporter claims

BY JAMIE WHITE
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/swampy-ocasio-cortez-reportedly-used-pac-to-funnel-cash-to-boyfriend/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used a political action committee (PAC) to funnel campaign funds back to her boyfriend, according to reports.
Republican strategist Luke Thompson first made known on Twitter last week that Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend Riley Roberts had a house.gov email address and was designated as one of her “Staff,” therefore “drawing a salary on the taxpayer’s dime.”
View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Luke Thompson@ltthompso

While you were having a nice Valentine’s Day, @AOC decided to put her boyfriend on staff – drawing a salary on the taxpayer’s dime. Nice to see her adapting to the swamp so quickly.

12.4K

8:54 AM – Feb 15, 2019

8,730 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy
The revelation was met with fierce opposition by Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who accused Thompson of “doxxing” Roberts despite the information being publicly available, and failed to explain why Roberts would need such access.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

✔@AOC

Replying to @ltthompso
Actually this cal designation is a permission so he can have access to my Google Cal. Congressional spouses get Gcal access all the time.

Next time check your facts before you tweet nonsense.

65.2K

9:45 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

11.3K people are talking about this

Saikat Chakrabarti@saikatc

Replying to @rkylesmith and 2 others
He started doxxing him. That’s a violation of terms in Twitter.

235

11:34 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

112 people are talking about this

“Per the House Admin office, a family member can, in special circumstances, get a house.gov email address,” Thompson reported Wednesday.
“But Roberts is not a family member, and although AOC referred to him as her partner in November of last year, she omitted him from her mandatory candidate financial disclosures for 2017 and 2018. Perhaps they’ve gotten married since. If so — if he is her spouse now — we should see his finances disclosed along with hers in her 2019 disclosure form due in May. But to be clear, AOC did not disclose Roberts’s finances as a spouse during her campaign.”
As Chakrabarti noted, Roberts also isn’t an unpaid volunteer and “isn’t doing any government work.”

Saikat Chakrabarti@saikatc

Replying to @ltthompso @AOC
He’s not paid. We have no volunteers in the office. He’s not doing any government work. He can see her calendar just like spouses/partners/family members in other congressional office. Check your damn facts before you report bullshit. Lazy journos need to learn to do their jobs.

6,374

9:59 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,323 people are talking about this

Additionally, instead of producing the appropriate evidence to refute Thompson’s claims, the mainstream media attempted to provide cover for Ocasio-Cortez using their own talking points.
“Instead of asking if Roberts had been supplied with the badge and pin appropriate to a Congressional spouse, evidence of which her office should have been able to produce easily, AOC’s worshipful stenographers in the press went into overdrive witlessly repeating her talking-points,” Thompson wrote.
Former chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz said Friday that such an arrangement was “inappropriate.”
“It’s totally naïve and inappropriate – you wouldn’t allow it in most companies, let alone the House of Representatives. There should be real consequences,” he told Fox News.
“When I was in the House, my scheduler would forward my wife my schedule once a week. But you’re not allowed unfettered access. And he isn’t even her spouse…It should be referred to the ethics committee for further investigation,” he added.
It gets deeper: Chakrabarti co-founded a PAC called Brand New Congress LLC in 2017, which Ocasio-Cortez paid for “strategic consulting” for her campaign.
Brand New Congress LLC then hired Roberts as a “marketing consultant” for AOC’s campaign, paying him approximately $6,000.

Luke Thompson@ltthompso

A rich guy used a PAC to pay @AOC‘s boyfriend $6,000 when her campaign was running out of money. After AOC won, she gave that rich guy a job in her office. Follow me on a journey.https://medium.com/@ltthompso/the-congresswoman-loves-the-swamp-d33296ec251e …

19.7K

8:48 AM – Feb 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The Congresswoman Loves the Swamp – Luke Thompson – Medium

Her Wealthy Chief of Staff used a PAC to Pay Her Boyfriend

medium.com

12.1K people are talking about this

“Why would Chakrabarti, a founding engineer at Stripe and a wealthy veteran of Silicon Valley, be hiring a no-name ‘UX Experience’ guy with little discernible marketing experience to serve as Brand New Congress PAC’s sole marketing consultant?” Thompson asked.
“The answer seems to be that Chakrabarti was funneling money paid to him by AOC’s campaign back to Roberts and by extension to AOC,” Thompson wrote.
In effect, Chakrabarti likely reimbursed AOC through Brand New Congress LLC to mitigate her campaign’s mounting debt, he says.
“Regardless of whether or not Roberts was officially AOC’s spouse at that time, it seems probable Chakrabarti was reimbursing her for her campaign expenses off-books. Brand New Congress PAC simply served as a pass-through to do so,” Thompson continued.
After Ocasio-Cortez won in the 2018 midterms, she then hired Chakrabarti as her Chief of Staff.
“That’s definitely unethical and potentially illegal,” Thompson wrote. “Chakrabarti may have made an illegal campaign contribution in excess of federal limits. Regardless, it raises questions about Chakrabarti’s hiring as AOC’s Chief of Staff after her election.”
A shocking aspect of this is that the mainstream media failed to uncover (or simply ignored) any of this information despite the fact it was publicly available for scrutiny.
For now, it appears AOC is adjusting to the swamp just fine.

HOW TO IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST VACCINE PROPAGANDA~LISTENING VS COERCION ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”~BABY DIED AFTER VACCINATION

FDA THREATENS TO ENFORCE MANDATORY VACCINATION LAWS COUNTRYWIDE

Federal government set to override state laws, force vaccines amid MSM-fueled measles hype

_______________________________________________________________

HOW TO IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST 

VACCINE PROPAGANDA 
BY Jeremy R. Hammond 
SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/how-to-immunize-yourself-against-vaccine-propaganda/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A New York Times editorial attacks “anti-vaxxers” as “the enemy”, but it’s the Times editors who are dangerously irrational and ignorant of the science.
On January 19, 2019, the New York Times published an editorial mischaracterizing anyone who dares to criticize or dissent from public vaccine policy as dangerously irrational and ignorant.1 In doing so, the Times avoided having to seriously address any of the countless legitimate concerns that parents have today about vaccinating their children according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. Consequently, the Times fulfills the mainstream media’s typical function of manufacturing consent for government policy by manipulating public opinion through deception.2 In this case, the consent being manufactured in service of the state is for public vaccine policy, which constitutes a serious threat to both our health and our liberty.
What the Times editorial represents is not journalism, but public policy advocacy. And to persuade its readers to strictly comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule, the Times blatantly lies to its readers both about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
The first clue that the Times editorial aims to avoid any serious discussion of the issue is the title: “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers”. The term “anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the derogatory label that the media apply to anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. It is reflective of the mainstream media’s routine use of ad hominem argumentation in lieu of reasoned discourse. Rather than substantively addressing their arguments, the media simply dismiss the views of and personally attack critics and dissenters—and this Times editorial is certainly no exception.
The second clue is in the editorial’s subtitle: “The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.” To equate public vaccine policy with “public health”, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. It presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that vaccinating the US childhood population according to the CDC’s schedule is the best way to achieve a healthy population. Many parents, researchers, doctors, and scientists strongly and reasonably disagree.
The Times would have us believe that the science on vaccines is settled. The reality is that there is a great deal of debate and controversy in the scientific literature about the safety and effectiveness of CDC-recommended vaccines. The demonstrable truth of the matter, as the Times editorial so amply illustrates, is that what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things.
Indeed, the underlying assumption that the CDC is somehow infallible in its vaccine recommendations is indicative of how vaccination has become a religion, with those who dare to question official dogma being treated as heretics.

How the New York Times Characterizes the Vaccine Issue

The New York Times begins by noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) recently listed “vaccine hesitancy” among ten “threats to global health”.3 The term “vaccine hesitancy” refers to a person’s reluctance or refusal to strictly comply with public vaccine policy, which in the US is determined principally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state legislatures making compliance with the CDC’s recommendations mandatory for school entry.
For context, children in the US today who are vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 72 or more doses of 19 vaccines by age eighteen.4This has naturally led many parents to wonder what the potential unintended consequences might be of their children receiving so many vaccines, including sometimes many at once.
The Times laments that an estimated 100,000 American infants and toddlers remain totally unvaccinated, with millions more having received some but not all of the CDC’s recommended vaccines, all of which the Times describes as “crucial shots”.
The Times characterizes parents who choose not to strictly comply with public vaccine policy as irrational and ignorant of the science. According to its narrative, the internet abounds with “anti-vaccine propaganda” that “has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information.” The “anti-vaxxers” have “hundreds of websites”, media influencers, and political action committees engaged in an “onslaught” of this “propaganda”, which consists of “rumors and conspiracies”.
The response to this “onslaught” by public policy advocates, by contrast, “has been meager.” The CDC “has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice”, and the rest of the government “has been mum”, leaving “just a handful of academics who get bombarded with vitriol, including outright threats, every time they try to counter pseudoscience with fact.”
The public policy critics and dissenters, according to the Times, are responsible for causing “outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis”, as well as “an increase in influenza deaths” and “dismal rates of HPV vaccination”, the latter of which the Times editors believe otherwise “could effectively wipe out cervical cancer”.
The Times editors further argue that vaccines are “victims of their own success” because people don’t remember “how terrible those diseases once were”. To counter vaccine hesitancy, there are “some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop.”
“Trust in vaccines” is being “thoroughly eroded”, the editorial argues, threatening to cause “the next major disease outbreak”. To thwart this “danger”, the Times advocates that other states follow California’s example in eliminating nonmedical exemptions for mandatory vaccinations.
Describing critics and dissenters as “the enemy”, the Times asserts:
The arguments used by people driving the anti-vaccination movement have not changed in about a century. These arguments are effective because they are intuitively appealing—but they are also easily refutable. Instead of ignoring these arguments, an effective pro-vaccine campaign would confront them directly, over and over, for as long as it takes. Yes, there are chemicals in vaccines, but they are not toxic. No, vaccines can’t overwhelm your immune system, which already confronts countless pathogens every day.
Instructively, while the Times asserts that the arguments used by public policy critics are “easily refutable”, the editors avoided having to actually do so by simply lying that they ignore the past hundred years of science. While urging public policy advocates not to ignore the arguments against vaccinating, the Times editors do precisely that.
On the contrary, the critics most certainly cite modern science to support their arguments and to expose how the public is being blatantly lied to by the government and mainstream media, such as how the Times here lies that aluminum and mercury, both used as ingredients in vaccines, “are not toxic.”
Since the Times utterly fails to do so, let’s now take a serious and honest look at the subject and examine the real issues and legitimate concerns that the Times goes so far out of its way to avoid discussing.
To read the rest of this article on the author’s website, please click “How to Immunize Yourself Against Vaccine Propaganda“…
Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published on Jeremy Hammond’s blog at JeremyRHammond.com.
References:
1 Editorial Board. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. The New York Times, Jan. 19, 2019.
2 I am borrowing the phrase “manufacturing consent” from Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, whose treatise Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon, 1982) describes the mechanisms by which the mainstream media in the US manipulate information, delivering propaganda instead of real journalism in service of the state. They were in turn borrowing the phrase from Walter Lippmann, who had likewise described this phenomenon in his 1921 book Public Opinion.
3 World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. WHO.int January 2019
4 Hammond JR. How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually. JeremyRHammond.com Jan. 11, 2019. A note on citing previous writings of mine as a source to support my arguments in this article: Where I’m citing previous writings of mine as a source for this article, it is because I’ve already written about it in more detail it elsewhere. I encourage readers to read these previous writings and to check the sources I cite to verify the accuracy of what I’m saying for themselves.
____________________________________________________________

Listening vs Coercion on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

BY KATE RAINES
SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/listening-vs-coercion-on-vaccine-hesitancy/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The rhetoric surrounding vaccination has long been dismissive of anyone who questions the safety or effectiveness of vaccines or refuses to follow vaccine use recommendations by public health officials and physicians, but the vitriol has reached new heights of late. On one end of the spectrum is the relentless bashing of a young mother who had the audacity to ask on social media what she might do to protect her unvaccinated three-year-old from outbreaks of measles.1
On the other end of the spectrum is the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) declaration of vaccine hesitancy as “one of the top ‘Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019’, alongside air pollution and climate change; noncommunicable diseases; global influenza pandemic; antimicrobial resistance and infectious diseases such as Ebola, dengue fever and HIV.”2
However, one thing many studies have found is that people who favor exercising their informed consent rights with regard to vaccination tend to be among the most educated and conscientious of parents. Several of those studies are summarized and referenced by pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD.3 Commonalities that arose from those studies indicated that while the parents of incompletely vaccinated children trended toward being single, young, poor and less well educated, those of deliberately unvaccinated children were more likely to be college educated and married, with a higher income and had spent time rigorously researching vaccine information.3  
Other researchers have shown a prevalence among vaccine-hesitant parents “salutogenic parenting,” defined as those who “practiced health-promoting activities which they saw as boosting the natural immunity of their children and protecting them from illness (reducing or negating the perceived need for vaccinations). Salutogenic parenting practices included breastfeeding, eating organic and/or home-grown food, cooking from scratch to reduce preservative consumption and reducing exposure to toxins.”4
Another quality identified as common among those who question the recommended schedule of childhood vaccinations or forced vaccination policies is distrust of conventional Western medicine.5
Some mainstream doctors, who restrict health care to use of pharmaceutical products and interventions that conform to the medical model, may attempt to shame caring, educated parents into giving their children every single vaccination recommended by government health officials and medical trade associations. However, this tactic has often met with mixed results. Some parents choose to acquiesce, while other parents dig in their heels and opt to delay recommended vaccinations or stop vaccinating altogether. For the more reluctant or “vaccine hesitant” parents, the preferred methods of persuasion today are to educate them about the dangers of not vaccinating, or to incentivize them by citing insurance premium penalties for not vaccinating, or threatening to exclude them from a medical practice for being “non-compliant.”6
The one thing that hasn’t been widely tried by mainstream medical professionals is listening with an open mind to parents who are hesitant about vaccination and working as partners with them rather than taking an authoritarian adversarial approach. This may be changing. On its list of six recommendations for responding to “vaccine hesitant parents,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first lists listening to “parents’ concerns” and acknowledging them in a “non-confrontational manner.”7
It is unclear whether this recommendation is a serious attempt to be open to parental concerns about vaccination and respectful of the informed consent ethic or merely another tactic to coerce parents,8 but the idea of vaccine providers at least being willing to listen to their patients is a good start toward developing a mutually civil and respectful conversation about vaccination.
References:
1 Wv K. Anti-Vaxx Mom Asks How To Protect Her Unvaccinated 3-Year-Old From The Measles Outbreak, Internet Delivers. BoredPanda.com.2 Fisher BL. WHO, Pharma, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? NVIC.org Jan. 27, 2019.3 Thomas P. Education Levels of Non-Vaccinated Parents. DrPaulApproved.com 2019.4 Ward PR, et al. Understanding the Perceived Logic Of Care By Vaccine-Hesitant And Vaccine-Refusing Parents: A Qualitative Study In Australia. PLOS ONE Oct. 12, 2017.5 Gullion JS, et al. Deciding to Opt Out of Childhood Vaccination Mandates. Publ Health Nurse September-October 2008; 25(5): 401-8.6 Raines K. Tactics Doctors Use to Pressure Hesitant Parents to Vaccinate. The Vaccine Reaction May 31, 2017.7 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine Hesitant Parents. AAP.org.
8 VAXOPEDIA. How Pediatricians Should Talk to Vaccine Hesitant Parents. VAXOPEDIA.org.

One Response to “Listening vs Coercion on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’“

  1.  redpill  February 20, 2019 at 6:31 pm

    “listening with an open mind to parents who are hesitant about vaccination and working as partners with them rather than taking an authoritarian adversarial approach”.
    Not going to happen with the majority of Doctors that push vaccines. Why? EGO. The idea that a lay person is trying to tell them about medicine. They think they spent over a decade learning how to practice medicine and no google MD is going to tell me anything. Please note I said how to practice medicine and not how to be a Doctor or a Healer.
    PLUS: Regardless if they agree with the parents and know vaccines cause damage they have to weigh money against what’s best for the child. Drs’ practices are given money by the insurance companies when they reach a 100% vaccination rate in their practices. This is one of the reasons Doctors were kicking children out of their practices. The family’s vaccine refusals were messing with their averages. Doctors Incentivized by CDC to Increase Vaccination Coverage -https://thevaccinereaction.org/2016/08/doctors-incentivized-by-cdc-to-increase-vaccination-coverage/.
    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/08/08/proof-surfaces-insurance-co-pays-massive-bonuses-doctors-vaccinating-babies/-https://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/08/08/proof-surfaces-insurance-co-pays-massive-bonuses-doctors-vaccinating-babies/.
    It is difficult to get a doctor to listen to a parent, when his/her income depends on his/her not “hearing” what the parent is saying.
  2. _____________________________________________________

  3. A Baby Died After Vaccination

  4. BY CAMMY BENTON, M.D.
  5. SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/a-baby-died-after-vaccination/
  6. republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

  7. 
I watched every mother’s nightmare unfold yesterday in a conversation on a local online mom’s group.  It began when the baby’s aunt asked frantically for prayers for her nephew, who had gotten his four-month shots that day and was found unresponsive in the evening.  Then we learned the baby had apparently bled from every orifice and had swelling of the brain. The aunt shared that they kept the baby “alive” to give family time to arrive at the hospital.  And then, the baby died.
    

    
The aunt told us the probable diagnosis was SIDS. When the family questioned the doctor about whether the vaccines (pneumococcal, H. influenza (HIB), rotavirus, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DTaP) and polio, and perhaps hepatitis B if he had not yet received that at birth) administered just hours before could have caused this massive organ failure and death, the doctor denied the possibility of any causal relationship between the baby’s death and the vaccinations he was given. The doctor justified that conclusion on the basis of the infant not reacting poorly to the series of shots given at two months.
    

    
So a healthy baby goes in for a well child check with a minor cold, receives multiple vaccines and is dead within hours but there is no possibility the vaccinations played any role in the infant’s sudden death?
    

    
It is always tragic when an infant dies. As a family physician responsible for the care of many children, my distress is felt at a professional as well as a personal level when a child dies. Why did this child die and what could have been done to prevent this baby’s death and saved these parents from the lifetime of grief that results from such a loss?
    

    
I reached out privately to my colleagues for support.  Some responded with sincere sadness and worry. One physician friend recalled a night on call as a resident when a two-month-old died following a hepatitis B vaccination given earlier that day. The attending physicians wouldn’t let my friend report the death to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) because they deemed the death after the hepatitis B vaccination to be “a coincidence.” My story brought back those memories for her and she felt awful and conflicted.
    

    
Another physician friend told me “It’s sad when babies die,” and went on to admit concerns about vaccines, but ended by saying, “But of course the benefits outweigh the risks.” In response to my concern about the temporal relationship between a healthy child receiving vaccines and that child dying within hours, a common theme among these doctors seemed to be, “correlation does not equal causation,” and “they may harm some but overall they’re more beneficial to the majority.” No one seemed interested in exploring the deadly correlation in this case or in learning more about how injecting not just disease antigens but many other chemicals, adjuvants and foreign DNA into infants might affect them.
    

    
As a physician, stories like this one make me ask some difficult questions. Since nothing in our medical training has prepared us to recognize or respond to treat vaccine reactions, and we don’t seem to be able to recognize death as an adverse reaction when it happens within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, how in the world are we going to recognize any of the other milder warning signs of vaccine adverse events that could harm a child’s health? Is it possible that this baby had symptoms that his body wasn’t handling his earlier shots, and due to adherence to the prevailing one-size-fits-all mindset, those signs went unnoticed?
    

    
A colleague of mine stumbled upon a book called Every Second Child by Archie Kalokerinos, MD. Dr. Kalokerinos found that many babies who presented similarly to the baby in my town turned out to have vitamin C deficiency (scurvy). He found old studies supporting the use of high dose vitamin C, and began using that treatment. Dr. Kalokerinos won the Australian Medal of Merit in 1978 for lowering the infant mortality rate from 50 percent to almost none. He felt so strongly about sharing his findings that he gave his book away rather than selling it.1
    

    
If we care about protecting the “greater good” then why is it so politically incorrect to care about the individual casualties of what is presumed to be a “good” medical intervention? If we are so smart and have so much science behind our decisions, why would we not look at those who die after vaccination to find commonalities for the purpose of finding ways to prevent a vaccine-related death or injury?    
    

    
We should not be afraid to explore the relationship between vitamin levels, electrolytes, genetics, family history, breastfed versus formula fed status, method of birth, prenatal history and antibiotic use, and the specific and nonspecific negative effects of vaccines. It seems unethical for physicians to demand the full cooperation of parents in vaccinating their children with every one of the 50 doses of 14 vaccines currently recommended by the CDC starting on the day of birth through age six, only to be abandoned with a shrug and “it’s for the greater good” when their child is injured or dies after receiving those vaccines.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    

    
I want to know why the lives of those who might die from “vaccine preventable diseases” matter more than those who die from vaccines? If we don’t know why a four-month-old baby in our community died, don’t we owe it to that child and his family to at least be curious?
  8. References:
    1 Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child. Sept. 1, 1981.
    2 Buttram HE. Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis? Hacienda PublishingFall 2001.
    3 Innis MD. Autoimmune Tissue Scurvy Misdiagnosed as Child Abuse. Clinical Medicine Research Nov. 10, 2013 (6); 154-157
    4 Ward  Iwasa S, Ishida S, Akama K. Swelling of the brain in mice caused by pertussis vaccine: its quantitative determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine. Jpn J Med Sci Biol April 1985; 38(2): 53-65.
    5 Beckenhauer WH, Gill MA. Immunosuppression with combined vaccines. J Am Vet Med Assn1983; 183(4): 389-390.6 Munoz JJ, Bernard CC, Mackay IR. Elicitation of experimental encephalomyelitis in mice with the aid of pertussigen. Cell Immunol January 1984; 83(1): 92-100.7 Behan PO, Moore MJ, Lamarche JB. Acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy. Postgraduate Medicine 1973; 54(4): 154-160.
    8     Flexner S. Post-vaccinal encephalitis and allied conditions. JAMA Feb. 1, 1930; 94: 305-311.
    9 Karlsson L, Scheibner V. Association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections and cot death. Presented at Second Immunization Conference, Canberra, May 27-29, 1991.
  9. ___________________________________________________________
  10. SEE ALSO:
  11. https://www.infowars.com/plague-inc-video-game-to-cast-anti-vaxxers-as-disease-spreaders/

TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY~FOREIGN POLICY OVERREACH

Ambassador Richard Grenell
FOREIGN POLICY OVERREACH: TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN 
TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
President Trump has launched a global campaign to end criminalization of homosexuality in countries where homosexual activity is illegal, NBC News reports. But while the effort may be considered a noble one, there is little hope that it will win the administration any support from the LGBTQ community. Instead, the campaign merely exemplifies the overreach of America’s foreign policy and has the potential to do untold damage to alliances.
The campaign is being led by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, an openly gay official in the Trump administration. As part of the effort, the U.S. embassy is bringing in LGBT activists from Europe for a dinner at which guests will discuss strategies to advocate for decriminalization in places such as the Middle East and Africa. Officials contend that the campaign will likely require input from global organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, as well as from individual countries where homosexual activity is not illegal. The focus will remain on decriminalization and not on broader issues such as same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the dinner.
The campaign is largely in response to the recent hanging of a young homosexual male in Iran.
“This is not the first time the Iranian regime has put a gay man to death with the usual outrageous claims of prostitution, kidnapping, or even pedophilia. And it sadly won’t be the last time,” Grenell asserted. “Barbaric public executions are all too common in a country where consensual homosexual relationships are criminalized and punishable by flogging and death.”
He added that “politicians, the U.N., democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up — and loudly.”
Grenell and the Trump administration are hopeful that redirecting Europe’s attention to the human rights outrages in Iran will generate more support from Europe for U.S. opposition to Iran. But NBC observes that the administration may be playing a dangerous game, as focusing on LGBT rights in Iran could also expose other close U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia to criticism and potentially hurt alliances.
And despite Grenell’s efforts to protect homosexuals from abuse in other nations, members of the LGBTQ community seemingly have no interest in approving of anything the Trump administration does and are decrying the campaign as “racist.”
Staff writer Matthew Rodriguez at Out magazine is accusing the Trump administration of using an “old racist tactic.”
“While on its surface, the move looks like an atypically benevolent decision by the Trump administration, the details of the campaign belie a different story,” Rodriguez began.
“Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, Trump’s campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda,” Rodriguez continued.
“The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook. In her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term ‘White men saving brown women from brown men’ to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them,” wrote Rodriguez. “Spivak was referencing the British colonial agenda in India. But Grennell’s attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.”
Rodriguez ultimately contends that the administration’s campaign is ultimately an anti-Muslim one disguised as pro-LGBTQ:
Grennell’s sudden interest in Iran’s anti-gay laws is strikingly similar to Trump’s rhetoric after the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando, Florida. After the deadly shooting, Trump used the 49 deaths as a way to galvanize support for an anti-Muslim agenda rather than find a way to support LGBTQ+ people. In pushing for immigration restrictions and a Muslim ban, Trump argued, he was the true pro-LGBTQ+ candidate. Rather than honor those who died, Trump used the tragedy as a way to stoke fear among the American people, and Grennell is taking similar actions with Iran — trying to reach an economic goal by painting the administration’s opponent as anti-gay.
In other words, no matter where President Trump falls on any of the issues, those on the Left will always perceive his actions as inflammatory and offensive.
As mentioned above, the campaign has the potential to hurt U.S. relations with some of its other Middle Eastern allies and exacerbate already-strained relations with Iran. It also compels critics of the Trump administration to question a foreign policy that seems to have a double standard for different countries, The Daily Beast reports.
“If this commitment is real, we have a lot of questions about their intentions and commitments, and are eager to see what proof and action will follow,” said Human Rights Campaign senior international policy advocate Jeremy Kadden in a statement.
“Donald Trump and Mike Pence have turned a blind eye to a campaign of violence and murder targeting LGBTQ people in Chechnya that has stretched on for two years,” said Kadden. “They have turned away LGBTQ people fleeing violence and persecution and sent them back to countries that criminalize them, and have consistently worked to undermine the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families here at home from day one.”
Perhaps worst of all, it sets a precedent for intervention into the domestic affairs of sovereign countries by other nations.
So is it worth it?
___________________________________________________________

Trump admin announces global push to decriminalize sodomy

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/trump-admin-announces-global-push-decriminalize-sodomy/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
February 20, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration revealed Tuesday that it will be spearheading a global effort to get countries to end their criminalization of homosexuality, according to a report by NBC News. While the move is likely to distress many of Trump’s Christian-base supporters, it has interestingly been met with a cold shoulder by U.S. pro-LGBT voices.
The effort is being led by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a homosexual conservative rumored to be in consideration as President Donald Trump’s next ambassador to the United Nations.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” a US official told NBC News of the effort, which begins this week with an American-hosted strategy meeting in Berlin of LGBT advocates from across Europe.
The report notes that the effort is “narrowly focused on criminalization” instead of pressuring countries to adopt policies such as same-sex “marriage,” and is motivated in part by Iran hanging a man last month for violating the Islamic nation’s ban on sodomy, a capital offense (the man was also accused of kidnapping two teenagers, though it’s unclear how both offenses factored into his sentence. Grenell believes the kidnapping charges are false).
“This is not the first time the Iranian regime has put a gay man to death with the usual outrageous claims of prostitution, kidnapping, or even pedophilia. And it sadly won’t be the last time,” Grenell said. “Barbaric public executions are all too common in a country where consensual homosexual relationships are criminalized and punishable by flogging and death […] politicians, the U.N., democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up — and loudly.”
NBC notes that the administration may see emphasizing Iran’s treatment of homosexuals as a way to get more European nations to join its efforts to contain Iran, though there’s also concern the push could strain relations with Arab allies Trump also wants united against Iran.
“People can disagree philosophically about homosexuality, but no person should ever be subject to criminal penalties because they are gay,” Grenell has written. The ambassador later told NBC that religious and social conservatives support his efforts, with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – both of whom liberals have targeted for their Christian beliefs – “absolutely” on board.
Stefano Gennarini, Vice President of the Center of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), lamented the move, saying that the administration “has not shown the slightest interest in spending even a fraction of the financial and political resources required for this LGBT effort on pro-life diplomatic efforts”:

Stefano Gennarini@prolifeadvocate
 · 
Pro-life groups need to raise hell over this. The Trump administration has not shown the slightest interest in spending even a fraction of the financial and political resources required for this LGBT effort on pro-life diplomatic efforts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-launches-global-effort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081 …

Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

The administration is responding in part to a reported hanging of a young gay man in Iran, Trump’s top geopolitical foe.
nbcnews.com

Stefano Gennarini@prolifeadvocate
Pro-life groups must stop accepting GOP platitudes about the Supreme Court and the Mexico City Policy and demand real pro-life international efforts instead.
2:38 PM – Feb 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Stefano Gennarini’s other Tweets
Despite this dramatic gesture in the name of “gay rights,” pro-LGBT media outlets are doubling down on the narrative that Donald Trump is still a full-spectrum bigot.
The Washington Blade published a report lamenting that the US-based groups OutRight Action International, Human Rights Campaign and Council for Global Equality weren’t invited to the planning meeting, with HRC’s Jeremy Kadden declaring that Trump and Pence “have consistently worked to undermine the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families here at home from day one.”
Them journalist Matt Baume called the push “hypocritical” coming “after two years spent working to oppress LGBTQ+ people in America,” while Out’s Mathew Rodriguez penned a reaction titled, “Trump’s Plan to Decriminalize Homosexuality Is an Old Racist Tactic” rooted in a “colonial sense of paternalism rather than any true altruism.”
“The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook,” Rodriguez writes. “In her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?” postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term ‘White men saving brown women from brown men’ to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them.”
In this case, he argues, “Grennell’s [sic] attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.” Rodriguez’s piece has beenwidely mocked in conservative media.
While Donald Trump has strongly supported the right to life and religious liberty, and pushed back against the LGBT lobby on issues such as transgender soldiers, a science-based definition of gender, gendered restrooms, and government recognition of “pride month,” some social conservatives have expressed disappointment that his personal approval of homosexuality negatively impacts other policy decisions.
The president has nominated a variety of pro-LGBT officials to government posts and judgeships, continued a number of Obama-era pro-LGBT policies, such as an executive order on “gender identity nondiscrimination,” publicly praised the liberal, pro-LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans, and declared that the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling forcing all fifty states to recognize same-sex “marriage” was “settled law.”