IRAN’S AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI: “IF WOMEN WERE TO WEAR THE HIJAB”, THEY’LL BE SPARED “DEPRAVED BEHAVIOR”

IRAN’S AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI: 
“IF WOMEN WERE TO WEAR THE HIJAB”, 
THEY’LL BE SPARED “DEPRAVED BEHAVIOR” 
BY HUGH FITZGERALD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The recent directive of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government in Pakistan that schoolgirls cover up in order to prevent “unethical incidents” calls to mind the fact that Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, has said much the same thing. He has contended that Islam holds the answer to the problems of sexual mistreatment of women in Western societies.
If women were to wear the hijab, he argued, they would be spared such depraved behavior.
The “depraved behavior” that Khamenei ascribes to men, all men, in the West, is actually found much more often in the Muslim lands, where men are regarded as uncontrollable wild beasts when it comes to women, and they need to be protected from their own instinctive passions by women — devilishly attractive as they are — doing their part by covering up the way all obedient Muslimahs do.
But the licit behavior of Muslim men toward Muslim women certainly includes sexual mistreatment. A Muslim husband may demand sex from any of his wives, at any time and if she refuses, he may “beat” her for being disobedient (Qur’an 4:34). And “marital rape” of an unwilling wife certainly constitutes, for Western man, “depraved behavior.”
Khamenei doesn’t go into the full extent of the mistreatment of women under Islam. Men are superior to women, for whom they must act as guardians in all important matters. A daughter’s inheritance is half that of a son. Even more important, a woman’s testimony, for example, is worth only half that of a man, for as Muhammad himself explained, such a rule is necessary “because of a deficiency in her intelligence.”
Two days earlier, the Iranian regime executed a 24-year-old woman – reportedly a child bride who suffered domestic abuse while still a minor until her husband was killed. She claimed to have confessed to the murder under coercion, telling a judge the killer was in fact her husband’s brother, who she also accused of having raped her several times.
The accusation of repeated rape was not looked into, much less accepted, by the court, because in Islam, a charge of rape requires the testimony of four male eyewitnesses. Obviously there were none in this case, as indeed, there almost never are, which is one of the reasons why rape is so frequent a crime in Muslim lands — it’s almost impossible to get a conviction. Note that this girl was a “child bride.” That phenomenon is common in Islamic societies, because Muhammad himself married Aisha when she was six, and he consummated the marriage — that is, had sexual intercourse with her — when she was nine. Finally, she suffered “domestic abuse” because in Islam, a man can “beat” his wife, and there is little a wife can do about what is permitted by the Qur’an.
On an official Twitter account, Khamenei wrote, “The disaster of countless sexual assaults on Western women – including incidents leading to #MeToo campaign – and Islam’s proposal to resolve it.”
Islam’s proposal to “resolve” this “disaster of countless sexual assaults” is to have non-Muslim women dress like Muslim women, covered up, and the more covered up they are, the safer Khamenei believes they will be. Presumably it’s not as much fun to proposition a girl if she’s wearing a hijab or burqa; walking around naked in front of her also loses its appeal if she’s hijabbed. Making jokes with sexual innuendo — a third common #MeToo charge — would only be arousing if she doesn’t wear a veil. So put on that veil, and no one will proposition you, walk naked in front of you, or make certain kinds of jokes. Of course this is idiotic. Wearing the cover does not diminish the incidence of sexual assault. It’s a sign of male power over women. Many women are still subject to sexual assault, including rape, all over the Muslim world, the victims including many with cover, from simple hijabs to burkas and niqabs. Apparently that cover has not been enough to calm the raging beast within Muslim males.
What a squalid view of humanity Khamenei offers. No appeals to morality or decency will work with men, apparently. The only thing that will change their animal behavior will be to keep women covered up. And if it is the lack of cover that is responsible for rapes, why is there less sexual assault in the Western world than in Muslim lands? And why are Western women in Europe now so afraid, not of Western men, but of the Muslims in their midst? Could it not be more convincingly argued that Muslim men are taught to be contemptuous of women, to treat them as unequals, taught also that it is permissible to behave violently and aggressively toward women, especially Infidel women, and that men should not be held legally or morally responsible for actions which they cannot help?
He then linked a video clip which begins with news footage of some of the many [Western] women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault and harassment in workplace environments over the past year.
The slickly-produced video moves to brief excerpts from a speech Khamenei delivered on International Women’s Day last March in which he extolled the virtues of the hijab.
“You might have heard, a few months ago, that a large number of Western female politicians announced one right after another they had been subjected to abuse, harassment or violence at times while they were working in government offices,” he said, according to the subtitles.
“By introducing hijab, Islam has shut the door on a path that would pull women towards such deviation.”
The video ends with images of Iranian women wearing the Islamic head covering, and another Khamenei quote: “Hijab gives women freedom and identity.”
In Islam, the “hijab” does not give women “freedom,” for it is mandated for them by men. Those who seek to exercise real freedom, and choose not to wear the hijab, have  suffered everything from being murdered by their male relatives, as happened to Aqsa Parvez in Canada, to being sentenced to several years in jail simply for removing their hijabs in public by way of protest, as has happened to women in Iran.
“During the hundreds of years of oppression that the patriarchal Western civilization imposed on the female gender and particularly on Western women, some movements were launched by women to revive their rights,” the article begins.
This is rich: here is Ayatollah Khamenei describing the centuries “of oppression” that women suffered in the “patriarchal Western civilization.” It is not that Western civilization that permitted polygamy (which devalues each wife), that allowed a husband to divorce his wife by uttering the triple-talaq, that permitted a husband to “beat” his wife, that made a woman’s testimony worth half that of a man because of, according to Muhammad himself, “the deficiency in her intelligence.” Men are supposed to handle all the important matters, including finance, because of women’s inferior intelligence. It is male relatives who can punish a girl or woman who does not wear her prescribed cover or who does anything else to “dishonor” the family. Doesn’t all this add up to the “patriarchal civilization” that Khamenei absurdly ascribes to the Western world?
“One of these movements is the #MeToo movement which was initially launched by famous Western women who had experienced humiliation and sexual harassment. But, will this movement find the cause of this human disaster and the real solution to it?”
To end sexual harassment of women in the West, Khamenei has an easy solution: Western women need only dress like their Muslim sisters, who, just as soon as they put on the hijab or better still, the burka or niqab, will find that the men around them will be instantly subdued, their animal passions dissipated, and the women will be safe, as Khamenei is convinced happens in Iran. Yet we have plenty of examples of Iranian women, properly covered, who nonetheless have been raped, such as Reyhaneh Jabbari, who killed her rapist and was executed for that act of self-defense. And Iranian women are as subject to sexual harassment as Western women. The #MeToo movement has arrived in Iran, and many women have recounted their own assaults, even when they were fully covered. Here is one such testimony: “I have been sexually assaulted several times, even wearing chador, although I have never been quiet about. Not having ‘appropriate dress’ is nothing more than a patriarchal excuse.” “Even wearing chador” will not protect you. Khamenei needs to read what Iranian women are saying.
Ayatollah Khamenei presents himself as a defender of women, but the Supreme Leader is recorded as saying that “gender equality is one of the biggest mistakes of western thought.” Iran’s Islamic regime has, according to Iranian opposition groups, institutionalized, legalized and normalized misogyny, rape culture, and gender violence.
Another excerpt from Khamenei’s statements:
“In spite of the dim-witted and superficial propaganda campaigns of materialistic people, hijab does not shackle women.”
When hijab is made mandatory for girls and women, and if they disobey, that can bring severe punishment — prison terms — by  the state, and even murder by male relatives, this certainly “shackles” women. They are not free to refuse. They must obey. Their freedom has been curtailed.
“[The West] wants women to entertain men’s eyes.”
Western man is not the lust-crazed beast that Ayatollah Khamenei believes all men to be. Does he include himself, I wonder? Why would “the West” want women “to entertain men’s eyes”? Is he talking about the West that really exists? Last I looked, Western women were being urged to do everything that men do, to study STEM subjects, to run for office, to rise high at work and break all glass ceilings, to lean out. No one was being told to “entertain men’s eyes.” Ayatollah Khamenei has sex on the brain; he seems to think of America as one big show in Las Vegas, with leggy chorines and men in the audience straining at the bit.
“They want men to be free to even fulfil their visual lusts; so they persuade women to uncover, wear makeup and exhibit themselves before men!”
Who is “they” in Khomeini’s fantasy? Zionist spies? The C.I.A.? Who? Is he talking about Western agents who want “Iranian men” to fulfill their visual lusts so they persuade “Iranian” women “to uncover, wear makeup and exhibit themselves before men”? No one has been going around persuading Iranian women to uncover; they do it themselves, as a brave act of defiance against the Islamic clerics such as Khamenei himself. No one has to persuade them to wear makeup and lipstick; it is their own choice, their refusal to kowtow, their rebellion against the grim constraints of dour ayatollahs. Khamenei makes these acts of individual defiance sound like the product of a sinister conspiracy.
“If this [hijab wearing] is not observed, the society will be afflicted with the same depravity that the West is plagued with today.”
The greatest sexual depravity in the world today is that exhibited by Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham, U.K., where 1400 “white, English girls, “some as young as eleven,” were repeatedly raped by Muslim men, the mass rape of Yaziidi girls and women by the Muslim fanatics of the Islamic State in Iraq, the kidnapping and use as sex slaves of Christian girls by the Muslim terrorists of Boko Haram in Nigeria, the repeated examples of mass sexual assault and rape, by Muslim men, of Christian girls and women, during public celebrations, as at the New Year’s Eve celebration in Cologne in 2015/2016, during which 1,000 German women were sexually assaulted (and some raped) in public, by up to 2,000 Muslim men, while 400 other women were similarly assaulted in Hamburg, and many hundreds more groped, or raped, throughout Germany.
Rape statistics from all over Europe have shown  a great recent rise in the number of rapes, and they are related precisely to the number of Muslim migrants. The U.K. has the highest Muslim population and the highest sexual assault rate. Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate. The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Are all of these numbers just a random coincidence?
There are plenty of cases of Muslim men raping Muslim girls, too, in Europe, in the Muslim “ghettos” of the housing projects, though given a choice, Muslims prefer to rape Infidel girls, who are seen  as the “enemy” deserving such treatment, and who, by their dress and mien, are “asking for it.”
With little hope of making it outside the housing projects, many of these young men try to dominate their own neighborhoods, resorting to violence, especially against young women.
They rule gangland style, combined with the male-dominated traditions of the Arab countries they came from. It’s gotten so bad that, today, most of the young women only feel safe if they are covered up, or if they stay at home. Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble.
So the cover is worn not voluntarily, but out of fear.  It’s a sign that says “I’m a dutiful Muslim, please don’t attack me” — to ward off attacks by other Muslims. It doesn’t always work.
There is the case of Samira Belli, who was attacked though she wore the hijab:
Samira Bellil wasn’t asking for trouble, but trouble came to her. She’s the granddaughter of Algerian immigrants and she’s written a book about surviving the hell of the Paris ghettos.
“I was gang raped by three people I knew, and I couldn’t say anything, because in my culture, your family is dishonored if you lose your virginity,” says Bellil. “So I kept quiet, and the rapes continued. The next time, I was pulled off a commuter train and no one lifted a finger to help me. …Everybody turned their head away. They were all looking out the window.”
When Bellil’s family discovered that she had been raped, they weren’t sympathetic. They threw her out onto the streets. But she’s since discovered that what happened to her was not the only case.
“There was a trial in Lille where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Sometimes, it’s 80, or 50 or 10. It’s absolutely terrible,” says Bellil. “In the case of Argenteuil, it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school. Of course, everybody knew, but they’re so afraid of these young men that they prefer to close their eyes. That’s the price of peace in the ghettos.”
When the verdicts came down in this case, the courthouse turned into a madhouse. Eighteen teenagers were convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl over a two-month period. But what really shocked France was how the mothers of those boys reacted.
“You call this justice, seven years in prison for some oral sex,” says one mother. “It’s the girl who should be behind bars.
Does any of this suggest that Muslim girls and women who wear the hijab are immune to attack?
Khamenei has a dim view of humanity. Like many Muslims, he sees men as uncontrollable beasts, unable to stop themselves if women appear without cover. That is more true of Muslim men, certainly, for they have been raised in a misogynistic faith, and believe they have a right to control “their” women and to make sure that those women make themselves, through cover, as un-alluring as possible. If there is a rape, it’s always the fault of the victim.
In the non-Muslim West, men are not seen, nor treated, as ravenous sex-mad beasts. And though Ayatollah Khamenei might not believe it, Western women, even those who are models and film stars, are not regarded as fatally alluring, and pounced upon. And no one thinks that if Western women refuse to cover, that must mean they “are asking for it.” The West has its rapists, but nothing like the number who are to be found in the Muslim world, with its inculcated violence and misogyny. Rape is grossly underreported in Muslim lands for several reasons. It can get the victim in trouble for “dishonoring” the family. The victim receives not sympathy, but condemnation, and many girls are afraid, as a consequence, to report the crime. And remember, too, that a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, so if it is only a case of he said-she said, the victim has no chance of prevailing. Finally, to make a charge of rape under the Sharia requires the testimony of four male witnesses. How often is a rape victim going to have four male witnesses present who are not friends of the rapist? That requirement discourages many rape victims from going forward, and for those who do, their chances of seeing justice done are small.
“[The West says] women have to give up their modesty and morality and use their physical appeal in order to gain the approval of men. Is this humiliation or respect? Influenced by Zionist elements, the ignorant and intoxicated western world presented this idea under the guise of respect for women.”
Actually “the West” makes no such demand of women, about giving up their “modesty and morality” and using their “physical appeal.” Respect for women in the West is demonstrated in both their full legal and social equality. It is also shown in their exercise of free choice: women are not required to cover, nor forced not to cover. They can do as they decide, as individuals, and unlike in Islam, are not to be ordered about by their husbands, fathers, and brothers. If women do not cover in the West, it is their decision entirely. Khamenei’s reference to the “western world” being “influenced by Zionist elements” is of course both bizarre and incomprehensible. What could he mean? We don’t regard women as incapable of moral behavior if they dress in a certain way. Nor do we see men as unable to control themselves. If a Western man rapes a Western woman, she is not too ashamed to report it. Her family does not suffer “dishonor” as a result. In court, her testimony is not “worth half that of” the male defendant. Nor need she produce four male witnesses to the rape.
The #MeToo movement in the West began by addressing the abuse of women by powerful men, beginning with Harvey Weinstein, and it metastasized from that, with many other women  coming forward with their own tales of being forced to endure some kind of sexual assault, verbal or physical. The#MeToo movement is a sign not of weakness, but of female strength, given that some of the behavior described went back decades, with women at long last eager to reveal what had been kept quiet, for so long, out of fear of retribution from powerful men. It’s not a sign of decadence, as Khamenei thinks, but rather, of a salutary cleansing of the societal stables,
Raising questions about Khamenei’s arguments on compulsory hijab wear, Radio Farda, a U.S.-funded Farsi-language broadcaster, reported last March that “billboards disdaining sexual harassment in Tehran and other major Iranian cities indicate that despite four decades of forceful enforcement of compulsory hijab the issue of sexual harassment is still a major social problem in Iran.”
Indeed,  for forty years all Iranian girls and women have been forced to wear hijab and many women wear burqas, yet sexual harassment of all kinds — including rape — is still of major concern. That suggests that wearing cover turns out to be of little efficacy in preventing sexual assault.
Despite Khamenei’s idealized portrayal of the lives of women in Iran, a 2017 U.N. report on Iran cited official discrimination against women including underage marriage, the underrepresentation of women in decision-making positions and the labor force, and harassment of women’s rights campaigners. It said women and girls also faced discrimination with regard to divorce, child custody and freedom of movement and dress.
Earlier U.N. reports noted that under Iran’s Islamic penal code, “a woman’s testimony in a court of law is regarded as half that of a man’s” and that abuses of female prisoners include forced marriages, sexual violence and torture, and the rape of virgins awaiting execution.
The execution of 24-year-old Zeinab Sekaanvand has focused attention not only on the Iranian judiciary’s treatment of people convicted of crimes committed while minors, but on the issue of child marriage and abuse.
In Iran, girls may be legally married at 13, although those as young as nine may be married with the permission of their fathers and a court. (Nine is the age at which Islam’s prophet Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha, the youngest of his dozen wives and concubines, according to an authoritative Hadith.)
Seventeen percent of Iranian girls are married younger than 18, according to 2018 UNICEF data. (The highest rates are in sub-Saharan Africa. The figure for the U.S. is 0.46 percent, according to the Pew Research Center.)
Iran lies near the bottom – in 140th place out of 144 – of the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap” rankings for 2017. The survey examines political empowerment, economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, and health and survival, among men and women.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a terrible place for a woman. All the misogynistic Islamic rules apply. Husbands can take up to four wives; they can divorce any wife for any reason, merely by saying the triple-talaq; they can beat disobedient wives; they can marry girls as young as 13, and with special dispensation, even girls as young as 9, if the girl’s father, and a court, permit it. Daughters inherit half of what a son inherits. A Muslim woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man because of “women’s deficiency in judgment.” A rape victim must produce four male eyewitnesses to the rape. Women are required, whether they wish to or not, to wear cover, from hijab to burqa.
Crime statistics show that Muslims everywhere in Europe engage in much more rape and sexual assault than do non-Muslims. In Muslim countries, sexual assault statistics are hard to come by, for there is underreporting by victims, to safeguard their own and their family’s “honor,” and because it is so often not worth bringing charges, given the kind of testimony — four male eyewitnesses —  that the Sharia requires. But the testimony of rape victims in Iran, including many who wear the chador, undermines Khamenei’s claim that wearing islamically correct clothing will end sexual assaults.
Ayatollah Khamenei thinks we in the West are decadent and depraved because “our” women don’t wear hijab, which is needed to hide a woman’s natural allure, because men — according to Khamenei — are beasts. Perhaps it would be truer to say that all the Muslim men Khamenei meets are beasts in their attitude toward women. What could be more depraved than the Muslim grooming gangs of Rotherham, or the Islamic State members mass-raping helpless Yazidi girls? Khamenei should look at what the Islamic Republic has done to women over the past 40 years, and compare the freedoms and status enjoyed by women under the Shah’s regime, with what they must now endure under the misogynistic Islamic Republic, where merely removing your hijab for a bright shining moment of freedom can lead to several years in a dank, dark, thoroughly Islamic prison.

TWO CHILD RAPE SUSPECTS AT-LARGE AFTER POLICE IN NJ, NY REFUSED TO DETAIN ILLEGALS

2 Child Rape Suspects at-Large After Police in NJ, NY Refused to Detain Illegals
TWO CHILD RAPE SUSPECTS AT-LARGE AFTER 
POLICE IN NJ, NY REFUSED TO DETAIN ILLEGALS

Sanctuary City policies putting public in danger

BY ADAN SALAZAR
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Two illegal aliens accused of child sex crimes are on the loose in the Tri-State Area after local authorities failed to honor ICE detainer requests.
Police in New York and New Jersey had recently arrested two illegal immigrants from Mexico on sex assault charges.
In line with their Sanctuary City policies, police refused to honor federal detention requests and released the suspects, despite them being listed on ICE’s most wanted list.
ICE is now asking for the public’s help to get the two Mexican nationals back behind bars.
One illegal, Luciano Trejo-Dominguez, is wanted for a litany of crimes, including aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault (victim 13-15 years old), criminal restraint, criminal sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child. Despite this, he was released from the Cumberland County Jail in New Jersey on August 23 and “remains at-large.”
The other man, Joaquin Rodriguez Quiroz, is also wanted for child sex crimes, described by ICE as 3rd degree rape, involving a victim less than 17 years old. The Westchester County Jail in New York released him on Sept. 7, despite ICE lodging a detainer request.
“ICE has classified both men as fugitives and are asking anyone with information on where either of the child rape suspects are to call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE,” reports CBS New York.
ICE announced Thursday they nabbed 54 criminal illegal aliens in New Jersey after conducting a statewide sweep going after illegals who had been released by local authorities.
Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence in a statement Thursday criticized local police refusing to honor detainers, saying they’re threatening public safety.
“As law enforcement professionals, it is frustrating to see senseless acts of violence and other criminal activity happen in our communities, knowing ICE could have prevented them with just a little cooperation,” Albence stated. “To the public, who want to live and raise your families in safe neighborhoods, we ask you to hold your lawmakers accountable before you, or someone you love, is unnecessarily victimized by a criminal ICE could have removed from the country.”
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar

BETO O’ROURKE PROMOTES GUN CONFISCATION AT KENT STATE-WHERE GOVERNMENT SHOT & KILLED UNARMED STUDENTS

Beto Promotes Gun Confiscation at Kent State - Where Government Shot & Killed Unarmed Students
BETO O’ROURKE PROMOTES GUN CONFISCATION AT KENT STATE-WHERE GOVERNMENT SHOT & KILLED UNARMED STUDENTS

Democrat presidential hopeful calls AR-15 ‘instrument of terror’

BY BEN WARREN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke pushed for gun confiscation while at Kent State University, Ohio, the location where government agents shot and killed four unarmed students in 1970.
The irony of advocating to disarm Americans while at the site where the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-war protestors was lost on Robert Francis as he continued to call AR-15s, the choice target of government buybacks, ‘instruments of terror.’
Reporter Kaitlin Bennett, who famously open-carried a rifle on the same campus in a graduation photo to advocate arming students, called out Beto’s comments.
“We should be able to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government,” said Bennett to the Washington Post last year. “To make sure the government can’t go against the citizens.”
Additionally, commenters on Twitter were quick to point out how inappropriate it was for Beto to advocate gun-grabbing at Kent State of all places.
“Thanks to all who have sent me death threats for taking a picture,” said Bennett responding to the progressive backlash. “You’re the biggest advocates for gun rights. You proved exactly why people carry.
Can Beto Take It?

FDA: OVER 6,000 DEAD FROM PUBERTY BLOCKING DRUG FOR TRANSGENDER CHILDREN~ENDOCRINOLOGIST DISPROVES HORMONAL, SURGICAL INTERVENTONS

MULTIPLICITY OF GENDERS DENIED & DISPROVED BY BIBLE BELIEVING DOCTOR

Medical Risks of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children

Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, is an Endocrinologist practicing in Rocklin, CA. Dr. Laidlaw graduated from University of Southern California School of Medicine in 2001 and has been in practice for 18 years. He explained the dangers of radical new transition-affirming therapies for children with gender dysphoria.

Watch the full event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnP_W…

Doctor Exposes Transgender Propaganda

 “Medical Harms from the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria”


FDA: OVER 6,000 DEAD FROM PUBERTY BLOCKING DRUG FOR TRANSGENDER CHILDREN

Parents of kids with gender dysphoria not warned about dangers of hormone blockers

BY KELEN MCBREEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A drug used to block puberty in children with gender dysphoria is responsible for the death of over 6,300 people, according to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
The Christian Post reports Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron) “is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose.”
“The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age,” the outlet continues.
Citing FDA data, the article reads, “Between 2012 and June 30 of this year, the FDA documented over 40,764 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron), which is used as a hormone blocker. More than 25,500 reactions logged from 2014-2019 were considered ‘serious,’ including 6,370 deaths.”
A California-based endocrinologist named Michael Laidlaw has been exposing the controversial tactic of prescribing testosterone to girls as young as 8 who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Laidlaw argues, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care.”
However, when puberty blockers are given to children, an endocrine condition is created.
This dangerous practice is becoming increasingly lucrative for Big Pharma company AbbVie, with Lupron sales in the United States hitting $669 million in 2017.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
THE TERRIBLE FRAUD OF TRANSGENDER MEDICINE
At the Teens4Truth Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, Nov. 18, 2017. A physician who was in the 
Johns Hopkins Univ. Hospital group where "transgender medicine" was developed describes 
the lies, bad medicine, and fraud behind that movement. Quentin Van Meter, MD, FCP is a 
pediatric endocrinologist. He is a Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians and the 
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.


TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATES INFLUENZA VACCINE TASK FORCE TO PROMOTE “NATIONAL SECURITY & PUBLIC HEALTH”~FISHER & MERCOLA-THE ASSAULT ON VACCINE EXEMPTIONS

TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATES 
INFLUENZA VACCINE TASK FORCE TO PROMOTE 
“NATIONAL SECURITY & PUBLIC HEALTH” 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On Sept. 19, 2019, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order, “Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United State to Promote National Security and Public Health.” Describing mass use of influenza vaccines “to combat seasonal flu” and influenza pandemics as “strengthening our Nation’s public health and security,” he announced the establishment of a National Influenza Vaccine Task Force. The Task Force will develop a five-year national plan to reduce “reliance on egg-based influenza vaccine production” in the United States and increase the country’s “capacity of alternative methods” for producing influenza vaccines that “allow more agile and rapid responses to emerging influenza viruses.”1
The Executive Order also directs the Task Force to:
  • “advance the development of new, broadly protective vaccine candidates that provide more effective and longer lasting immunities;” and
  • support the “promotion of increased influenza vaccine immunization” among “populations recommended” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and
  • improve “public understanding of influenza risk and informed influenza vaccine decision-making.”1
The Task Force is specifically directed to look at ways to work through the director of the CDC to “increase influenza vaccine use through enhanced communication and by removing barriers to vaccination.”1
The Task Force will consist of a senior official from each of the following departments, agencies and offices: Department of Defense; Department of Justice; Department of Agriculture; Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Homeland Security; Food and Drug Administration; CDC; National Institutes of Health; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. The Executive Order directs the Task Force to submit a report on its plan to the President within 120 days.1
On Sept. 20, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore a $200 million grant to develop more effective influenza vaccines and, ultimately a “universal” influenza vaccine.2
During the second half of last year’s “flu season,” the influenza vaccine was estimated to be only nine percent effective.3
According to Kathleen Neuzil, MD, who directs vaccine research at the University of Maryland, “Eliminating influenza is the goal. It will certainly be a challenge, but in seven years we hope to have a better vaccine, or a lot of better vaccines.” The research, which will be conducted under a program called Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Center (CIVIC) will “address the need to develop and test influenza vaccines that protect against new and emerging strains, and ultimately prevent more disease,” says Dr. Neuzil.2 4
“Development of a better flu vaccine and ultimately a universal flu vaccine is important and life-saving work,” says U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.2
“A universal vaccine would protect against, if not all, a great array of influenza strains and could be given every 5 or 10 years or whatever it is,” says William Schaffner, MD, medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Every healthcare encounter would be an opportunity to provide that vaccine, not just every fall.”2
WBAL-TV 11 in Baltimore reports that the vaccine research that will be conducted under the grant to the University of Maryland will include “clinical trials and challenge studies in special populations such as children, pregnant women and the elderly.”5
References:
___________________________________________________________

2019 Vaccine Awareness Week—

Interview with Barbara Loe Fisher

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/09/2019-vaccine-awareness-week-interview-with-barbara-loe-fisher/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It’s been an incredible year, an unprecedented year. In this country, the assault on vaccine exemptions has covered the whole country. The National Vaccine Information Center has monitored more than 500 vaccine-related bills that have been introduced in the states this year that we have actively reported on and issued action alerts, in many cases, on more than 200 vaccine-related bills. So, what has happened this year as a result of the World Health Organization declaring that vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 global threats to health in this world, [is that it] was immediately followed by—and I don’t think coincidentally—reports of outbreaks of measles.

BERNIE SANDERS: “I DON’T THINK BILLIONAIRES SHOULD EXIST”

BERNIE SANDERS: 
“I DON’T THINK BILLIONAIRES SHOULD EXIST”
BY STEVE BYAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Bernie Sanders is calling for a “wealth tax” on the assets of America’s wealthiest people, complete with a “national wealth registry,” so the government will know where the wealth is when they plan to come and take it.
Sanders put it bluntly in announcing his proposal on Tuesday: “I don’t think billionaires should exist.”
Presently, Americans pay federal taxes on their annual income, but that is not enough for Sanders. He wants to confiscate the property of the very wealthy in the United States. Of course, much of a person’s wealth is already confiscated after their death, via estate and inheritance taxes. This proposal, however, would take a person’s cash, investments, real estate, and other wealth on an annual basis while they are still alive.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is running neck-and-neck with former Vice President Joe Biden in the race for the Democratic nomination, had previously proposed a wealth tax of two percent for those with a net worth of over $50 million and three percent for any net worth over $1 billion. Sanders’ proposal calls for even greater confiscatory rates than Warren, with his tax starting at one percent on any net worth over $32 million for a married couple and $16 million for singles. His proposal would go up from there, increasing to two percent for net worth from $50 million to $250 million, with incremental wealth tax brackets up to eight percent on any wealth over $10 billion.
“Under this plan,” Sanders explained, “the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.”
In other words, Sanders wants to simply confiscate wealth, not so much to pay for any legitimate government expenses, but just because he believes billionaires should not exist. The 19th-century French political philosopher Frédéric Bastiat had a term for what Sanders (and Warren) want to do: legal plunder. In his book The Law, Bastiat argued that just because theft is committed by government does not make it any less theft.
We tend to think that Democratic Party politicians are more socialistic in their public positions today than they were a generation ago, and in general that is true, but this type of thinking has been expressed publicly by some very powerful Democrats in the past as well. President Franklin D. Roosevelt actually proposed that “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year [roughly $475,000 today].”
Roosevelt was denied his wish by Congress, but he was eventually able to get a 94-percent rate on incomes in excess of $200,000 per year (nearly $4 million today).
But not even FDR proposed confiscating wealth already accumulated. For all the talk by socialists such as Sanders about how we should be more like Europe, his top rate of eight percent would more than double that of Spain’s wealth tax, which is presently the world’s highest. It should also be noted that Spain’s tax is only a temporary tax, enacted in 2011 during Spain’s financial crisis. Sanders is proposing a permanent wealth tax.
In France, a wealth tax was imposed in 1982, but was eventually repealed in 2017 in an effort to stop the exodus of many wealthy French business leaders and celebrities out of the country.
Were the United States to actually adopt this form of legal plunder known as a wealth tax, we could expect the same thing to happen here. Patriotism can have only so much hold on a person, and nations such as Canada, Switzerland, and others would be the beneficiaries of these highly productive individuals.
In the end, the wealth tax might actually reduce government revenue. After all, if a wealthy person knows that a wealth tax is soon to be imposed, he or she might just take that wealth elsewhere, and all of that person’s future income would be lost to the U.S. Treasury as well.
And for those who stay? Why make investments if a Sanders- or Warren-run government is just going to take those investments? Assets that cannot be moved easily, such as real estate, would be sold and the money taken with the person. But then who would be buying such an asset, knowing that the tax collectors are going to confiscate it?
This is a recipe for an economic depression.
Instead of investing inside the United States, one could expect those with the assets that Sanders, Warren, or some other leftist wants to take would make their investments outside of the country. Banks would lose assets that could be used to finance loans for home purchases and the like.
Of course, if that happened, a socialist such as Sanders would simply blame it on the free market, arguing that we need to nationalize the banks.
Hopefully, the American people still retain some sense of morality, and understand that stealing is wrong — whether it is done by a man robbing a liquor store, or by a socialist such as Bernie Sanders.

U.S. SENDS SOLDIERS & WEAPONS TO “DEFEND” SAUDI ARABIA FROM FUTURE ATTACKS

SARAH CORRIHER:

More Saudi Terrorism on American Soil

As Trump continues selling American’s best weapon systems to the Saudis and offering them military training on mainland U.S. military bases, the Saudis continue to be the largest funders of terrorism globally. A recent terrorist attack against U.S. military personnel on U.S. soil, which had been planned by a group of Saudi airmen trainees, is only more evidence of the irredeemable culture of the Arabic world.

U.S. SENDS SOLDIERS & WEAPONS TO “DEFEND” SAUDI ARABIA FROM FUTURE ATTACKS

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed on September 26 the deployment of 200 U.S. ground troops, one Patriot missile battery, and four radar systems to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
“In light of recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and at their invitation, Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper announced today that the U.S. would deploy” the above listed equipment, according to a statement released by Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.
“This deployment will augment the kingdom’s air and missile defense of critical military and civilian infrastructure. This deployment augments an already significant presence of U.S. forces in the region. The Secretary has also approved putting additional forces on Prepare To Deploy Orders (PTDO). While no decision has been made to deploy these additional forces, they will maintain a heightened state of readiness,” added Hoffman.
The “additional forces” mentioned in the memo include two additional Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD).
It is a highly suspect coincidence that, according to President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration, Iran attacked Saudi Arabia on September 14, just nine days after an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act was proposed that would discontinue military aid to the kingdom, as the money and materiel was being used to prosecute its war on Yemen.
The aid ordered by the president and the defense secretary will bypass such bipartisan blocking of aid to the oil-rich monarchy, as the American soldiers and weapons will be used only to defend Saudi Arabia against future attacks by Iran.
Furthermore, there seems little sense in sending money, men, and materiel to a hereditary monarchy that completely controls their country, including the $11 billion in net oil revenue they made in 2018. For sake of reference, that’s nearly twice what Apple netted last year.
One would think that for $11 billion the kingdom of Saudi Arabia could adequately fund the construction of weapons and an army and an air force sufficient to safeguard itself!
In a comment made during a White House meeting last week, President Trump said that he would hold off on ordering a retaliatory strike against Iran — for now.
“And it’s too bad what’s happening with Iran. It’s going to hell, doing poorly. They are practically broke. They are broke. And they could — they could solve the problem very easily. All they have to do is stop with the terror,” the president said during a press conference on September 20.
In a lengthy response to a question regarding whether he planned a military strike against Iran, President Trump told a reporter,
The easiest thing for me to do — and maybe it’s even a natural instinct, maybe I have to hold myself back. I remember during the debates, and when I was running against Hillary and the Democrats and the media — I view them all the same; I view that partnership very much the same.
But when I was running, everybody said, “Oh, he’s going to get into war. He’s going to get into war. He’s going to blow everybody up. He’s going to get into war.” Well, the easiest thing I can do — in fact, I could do it while you’re here — would say, “Go ahead, fellas. Go do it.” And that would be a very bad day for Iran. That’s the easiest thing I could do. It’s so easy.
And for all of those that say, “Oh, they should do it. It shows weakness. It shows…” Actually, in my opinion, it shows strength. Because the easiest thing I could do, “Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.” I could do that and — all set to go.  It’s all set to go. But I’m not looking to do that if I can.
And I think I’ve changed a lot of minds. People are very surprised that — and many people are extremely happy. Many people are thrilled. And many people are saying, “Oh, I wish you’d hit the hell the out of them.” Well, let’s see what happens. But it will take place in one minute; I could do it right here in front of you and that would be it.
There are several constitutional problems with the president’s threats of using the U.S. armed forces in “knocking out 15 major things in Iran.”
First, Article I of the U.S. Constitution very clearly places the authority to put American servicemen in harm’s way in the hands of the representatives of the people in Congress.
Among the legislative branch’s powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, there is granted the power “to declare war.”
The Founders were adamantly against allowing the president to put forces into combat.
On Friday, August 17, 1787, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, one of the delegates — Pierce Butler — advocating the granting of war-making power to the president. That was a most unpopular opinion.
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts jumped to his feet, declaring that he “never expected to hear, in a republic, a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.”
And such a prerogative was never granted in the Constitution.
In a letter penned in 1793 that is eerily timely even now, James Madison wrote that the power to declare war is “of a legislative and not an executive nature.” He continued on that subject:
Those who are to conduct a war [the Executive Branch] cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
Even when, as president, Madison was on the brink of war with Great Britain, he refused to act without the permission of the people’s representatives.
The United States’ policy must be aimed at “avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the government,” Madison wrote.
Regardless of republicanism or the lack of constitutional authority, the Pentagon will proceed to carry out the unconstitutional defense of a monarchy making hundreds of millions of dollars a month.
“It is important to note these steps are a demonstration of our commitment to regional partners, and the security and stability in the Middle East,” the Pentagon spokesman declared in the Defense Department’s memorandum on the United States’ deployment of troops and weapons in defense of Saudi Arabia.

BIDEN-BURISMA DOCUMENTS BELIE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT’S REASON FOR SACKING UKRAINE PROSECUTOR

BIDEN CORRUPTION
BIDEN-BURISMA DOCUMENTS BELIE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT’S REASON FOR SACKING UKRAINE PROSECUTOR
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Try as they might, the mainstream media can’t hide the truth about the Biden-Burisma scandal, which has blown up again thanks to President Trump’s phone call of July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Hate-Trump leftists on Capitol Hill would use that call to impeach Trump because he asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s strong-arming Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor in March 2016. That prosecutor was probing a company that employed a consultancy in which Biden’s son, Hunter, was a principal.
But Biden-Burisma documents published by John Solomon of The Hill show that Joe Biden very likely lied in explaining his role in the matter, and that when he was vice president, he used his office to enrich and protect his son.
Prosecutor Not Corrupt As Solomon reported late yesterday, then-Vice President Biden claims he pushed then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin because he “was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.”
But “hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative,” Solomon reported.
Indeed, they don’t just conflict. They show that Biden likely moved against Shokin to protect Burisma and his son, and to “stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
The proof?
In a meeting with Ukraine’s temporary prosecutor, Yuriy Sevruk, after Biden torpedoed Shokin, Burisma Holdings’ American legal team “offered ‘an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures’ about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.”
Burisma’s team included a lobbying firm, run by two former Clinton administration employees, that paid a Ukrainian embassy official for help to set up that meeting.
If Biden is telling the truth — that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Shokin wasn’t fired because Shokin was corrupt — then why, Solomon asked, would Burisma’s legal team say those claims were false?
Second, if sacking Shokin was unrelated to the Burisma probe as Joe Biden claims, Solomon continued, why did the Burisma protection squad contact the new prosecutor “within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?”
Probe Hadn’t Ended The Biden-Burisma scandal surfaced in December 2015, when the New York Times reported that Bursima hired Hunter Biden shortly after President Obama put Biden senior in charge of U.S.-Ukraine relations. But “that story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder,” Solomon continued.
As well:
Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
Solomon has sued the State Department to get records of that meeting to find out whether Hunter Biden used the department to help his business while his father was vice president.
And that business having been helped, did Biden senior push out Shokin to protect it?
Shokin told Solomon that he “was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm.”
Solomon’s documents include an affidavit from Shokin, who “testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is,” Shokin said, “that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.”
Central to Biden senior’s claim that he pushed out Shokin because of corruption is the corollary claim, which has appeared in some media reports, that the prosecutor’s office had closed its investigation of Burisma. But the Burisma probe was alive and well.
“The Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file,” Solomon reported. “One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.”
One of those false reports surfaced in the Washington Post just yesterday. Noting that the probe in Burisma was “dormant,” it quoted a former Ukrainian prosecutor as saying Hunter Biden did nothing wrong.
Maybe, but his activities implicate his father, the leading Democratic candidate for president, in a major influence-peddling scheme when he was vice president.