Etsy, PayPal CANCEL Biologist for Defending Real Gender Science

But guess what they're totally fine with . . .

This week MRCTV talked about how Etsy and PayPal reportedly censored Quillette Managing Editor Colin Wright’s organization, Reality’s Last Stand, for its unwoke position on the sexes.

Check out the short video below:

 

Boston mayor appoints former head of jihad terror-linked mosque as her deputy chief of staff

https://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Yusufi-Vali.jpeg

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/06/boston-mayor-appoints-former-head-of-jihad-terror-linked-mosque-as-her-deputy-chief-of-staff;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Islamic Society of Boston was founded by al-Qaeda financier Abrurrahman Alamoudi and had the Hitler-admiring Jew-hater Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi on its Board. It has recommended (in accord with Qur’an 4:34) that men beat their wives. Convicted jihadis Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddiqui went there. So did Ahmad Abousamra, the Islamic State’s “social media guru.” Oh, and the Boston Marathon jihad bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers.

Ironically, Michelle Wu wouldn’t dream of appointing someone who had spoken critically of jihad violence and Sharia oppression as deputy chief of staff. But this is fine.

“Massachusetts Politicians Enable Boston’s Islamists,” by Sam Westrop, Focus on Western Islamism, June 13, 2022:

In May, Boston’s progressivist Mayor, Michelle Wu, appointed Yusufi Vali as her Deputy Chief of Staff. Vali is the former head of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), an institution once considered to be among the most radical mosques on the East Coast. Vali’s appointment appears to be yet another case of a graduate of Boston’s Islamist institutions finding a powerful foothold in Massachusetts politics.

Vali certainly has some explaining to do. He is a former trustee of the Boston branch of the Muslim American Society (MAS), one of America’s most notorious Islamist institutions and a designated terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates.

In 2008, federal prosecutors wrote that “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Speakers at MAS conference have often openly glorified terrorism. In 2019, the Philadelphia branch of MAS made national headlines after it ran an event in which children sang about torturing and beheading Jews.

MAS’s Boston branch oversaw the management of ISB’s flagship mosque for many years, where Vali became executive director. Before Vali’s time, early trustees of the ISB’s first mosque, over the river in Cambridge, included Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the infamously-extreme spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirer of Adolf Hitler; as well as Abdulrahman Alamoudi, an Al Qaeda fundraiser who was jailed in 2004 for conspiring with the Libyan regime to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince….

CALIFORNIA SPRECKELS UNION School DISTRICT Secretly TRANSES Little Girl?!

The parents of a 12-year-old girl in the Spreckels Union School District (SUSD) in Salinas, California, claimed school staff indoctrinated their daughter into identifying as “trans fluid” after encouraging her to join a lunchtime “Equality Club.”

Executive director and general counsel to the Center for American Liberty, Mark Trammell joined "In Focus with Addison Smith" to discuss a lawsuit involving a mother and 11-year-old girl versus her school district, who allegedly roped the daughter into an equality club and eventually convinced her to identify as a boy, all while hiding it from the mother.

Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

Image: Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-20-simone-gold-sentenced-prison-speaking-capital-january-6.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) One of the faces of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has been sentenced to prison after she pleaded guilty back in March to a class A misdemeanor.

Dr. Simone Gold, we reported back in January of 2021, was arrested after she entered the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and delivered a speech via megaphone about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

She further discussed viable remedies such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, urging listeners to protect their natural DNA and immune systems rather than take an experimental injection that could – and likely will in the coming years for everyone who took it – kill them.

For the “crime” of entering the People’s building through the neatly positioned velvet ropes that were placed almost as a guide for those herded inside by law enforcement assets, Gold will now have to serve a two-month prison sentence.

Her guilty plea in March of this year admitted to “entering and remaining in a restricted building.” She clearly would have been better off burning down a small business or a target like Black Lives Matter (BLM) terrorists did without penalty.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., also sentenced Gold to 12 months of supervised release following her 60-day prison term and ordered her to pay a $9,500 fine.

Judge called it “unseemly” that AFLDS raised money for Gold’s salary by telling supporters her arrest was unfair prosecution

The judge told Gold that her statements about Fauci Flu shots did not factor into her sentencing. According to him, Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6, but rather an “insurrectionist.”

Cooper did accuse AFLDS, Gold’s organization, of “misleading” supporters into believing that her prosecution was politically motivated and that it trampled her First Amendment rights.

Cooper went on to call it “unseemly” that AFLDS is using the Capitol “riot” as a means of raising money, including for Gold’s personal salary.

“I think that is a real disservice to the true victims of that day,” he stated.

Gold traveled to the Capitol on Jan. 5, 2021, to speak at Freedom Plaza. Her intent was simply to deliver a medical speech – and when the gates were opened, so to speak, into the Capitol building, she simply brought her message inside.

Gold never committed any acts of violence, just to be clear. She simply spoke through her megaphone about the scam of the plandemic, and for this she was placed on the FBI’s most wanted release.

“I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of takedown moment, which is quite uncalled for,” Gold said about her prosecution.

“You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door.”

The FBI essentially raided Gold’s home, all because she spoke her mind about the plandemic and the serious crimes against humanity that were, and still are, being committed in the name of “public health.”

“It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country,” Gold added about her mistreatment at the hands of the state.

“If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I’m telling you, America: this can happen to you.”

More related news about Gold’s arrest and sentencing and other acts of government tyranny can be found at Overlords.news.

Sources for this article include:

TheGatewayPundit.com

NaturalNews.com

EXPOSED; HISTORY ALTERED: “Juneteenth” Was Not the End of Slavery DESPITE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE

“Juneteenth” Was Not the End of Slavery

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/juneteenth-was-not-the-end-of-slavery/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As President Joe Biden was only able to sign into law the observation of “Juneteenth” (June 19) as an official holiday of the United States two days before the date last year, this year was the first year that the holiday was fully observed across the country. While Juneteenth is often celebrated as the end of slavery, slavery did not actually end in the United States until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution several months later.

Like other federal holidays that fall on Sunday, this holiday is observed today, the following Monday.

In addition to this historical inaccuracy, the new holiday has several other problems, perhaps chief of which is its official name of Juneteenth National Independence Day. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of only 14 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the new holiday, and he explained his principal objection: “(N)aming this day ‘national independence day’ will create confusion and push Americans to pick one of those two days as their independence day based on their racial identity. Why can’t we name this ‘emancipation day’ and come together as Americans?”

Representative Chip Roy of Texas expressed it similarly. “This name [of national independence day] needlessly divides our nation on a matter that should bring us together by creating a separate Independence Day.”

The Emancipation Proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln is what has caused the confusion as to when slavery came to an end in the United States. It is commonly believed today, contrary to the historical evidence, that the North and South simply lined up and fought a four-year war to settle the issue of slavery, with Union soldiers fighting a grand crusade to end slavery and Confederate soldiers ready to die to keep their slaves.

In reality, the war was fought over the question of whether a state had a legal right to secede and leave the Union. Both Lincoln and Congress explicitly said early in the conflict that the war was not being fought to end slavery, but rather to keep the southern states from leaving the Union. When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to enforce the tariff in the South, he did not call for an invasion to free any slaves. When Lincoln issued his call for volunteers, which did lead to the Civil War, more states where slavery was legal were still in the Union than were out.

So why do so many people — probably a majority — believe that the War was fought to end slavery?

When the War dragged on for several months, with the Confederates winning more battles than they lost, it began to look as though the Confederate States of America would become an independent nation. By the fall of 1862, Great Britain (and France) were poised to recognize the new nation. In desperation, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to prevent that possibility.

But had he proclaimed the freedom of slaves in states that were still in the Union — Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky — those states might very well have seceded, as well. So Lincoln “threaded the needle,” so to speak. He ordered slaves freed in states that did not recognize his executive authority (i.e., the Confederacy), while leaving them enslaved in those states that recognize him as their president.

Even if Lincoln’s executive order had been legal — which it was not — it would have freed no one.

But it was enough to keep Britain and France out of the War since they did not want to be seen as supporting slavery.

Despite these historical facts, many today believe that the Civil War was fought to abolish slavery and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation completed that objective. (The absurdity that the War was fought to end slavery should be clearly seen by the Emancipation Proclamation itself. After all, if the war was being waged, from the beginning, to end slavery, why issue the Emancipation Proclamation a year and a half into the war?) This falsehood has slandered the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought in the war, with many of their own descendants damning them for supposedly fighting to keep human beings in bondage. The reality is that only a tiny minority of soldiers had any slaves at all.

If Lincoln had no legal authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the war was not fought to end slavery, then just what did end it?

The legal end of slavery was a result of the 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, months after June 19, 1865 — the date now celebrated in American law as Juneteenth National Independence Day.

So what did happen on June 19, 1865? That was the day that General Gordon Granger led his Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Civil War was now over and the slaves were free, basing his decree on the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation.

When Granger arrived in Galveston, the slaves there were apparently unaware of Lincoln’s executive order. Slave owners living in the Confederate States of America, in which Lincoln was not recognized as president, had mostly ignored the order until federal troops implemented it by force.

Following Granger’s announcement, some ex-slaves continued working on the farms of their former masters, only now for wages, or for room and board. Many eventually became — along with poor whites in the economically devastated post-war South — “sharecroppers,” in which a portion of their crops was used as a substitute for rent payments (money being exceptionally scarce in the former Confederate States). Most probably fled the farm on which they had been enslaved, taking employment elsewhere — if they could find it.

But at least they were free, and that is no doubt something to celebrate. As former slaves and their descendants spread out across the South, they would spread the story of General Granger’s proclamation on June 19. Combining the two words led to the term Juneteenth. The day was celebrated with church picnics, speeches, and reminiscences.

Certainly, the end of slavery in the United States is something to celebrate. But it should not detract from the great principles of liberty enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, which made the freeing of American slaves even possible and has led to greater freedom for all Americans.

Hopefully, the celebration of Juneteenth will not lead to any de-emphasis on America’s Independence Day on the Fourth of July.

FDA and CDC Authorize Moderna and Pfizer COVID Shots for Toddlers — Despite “37-51% Effectiveness Rate” In One Jab. Your Baby Would Need Three!

FDA and CDC Authorize Moderna and Pfizer COVID Shots for Toddlers — Despite “37-51% Effectiveness Rate” In One Jab. Your Baby Would Need Three!

BY ANNALISA PESEK

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/fda-and-cdc-authorize-moderna-and-pfizer-covid-shots-for-babies-and-toddlers-despite-51-effectiveness-rate/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unanimously approved the “emergency use” of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shots for babies six months and older, with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) endorsing the decision today in a panel vote of 12-0.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky blessed the committee recommendation, stating that “all children 6 months through 5 years of age should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Walensky took to Twitter, writing: “Today, I endorsed ACIP’s recommendation that all children 6 months through 5 years of age should receive a #COVID19 vaccine. Parents, I strongly encourage you to get your children vaccinated against COVID-19.”

According to the CDC’s own website, updated June 2, 2022, 442 children, ages 0-4, have died “from” COVID, while 815 children, ages 5-18, are counted as COVID deaths.

Yet the CDC website data fails to provide a description of the child’s health condition at the time of death, including whether comorbidities were present or not.

Now, with the approval of the shots for toddlers and preschoolers, nearly 20 million more kids are eligible for a jab that has not been proven to inoculate against the virus but merely lessen symptoms of severe illness and hospitalization rates, which were extraordinarily low among children, to begin with.

Parent reaction to the news appears mixed, as vaccines for adults have been proven not to provide absolute protection from the virus and have shown serious side effects that have not been thoroughly vetted.

According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor Survey, about one in five American parents said they’d get a COVID-19 shot for their babies six months and older. The study found that:

  • 18 percent are eager to get their child vaccinated right away.
  • 38 percent say they plan to wait a while to see how the vaccine is working for others.
  • 27 percent say they will “definitely not” get their child vaccinated.
  • 11 say they will only do so if they are required.

Moreover, “more than half of the parents of children say they do not have enough information about the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness for children under age 5.”

What parents do know, however, is that one shot is not enough.

A report by CNBC, which, interestingly, if one clicks on the linked words “Moderna” or “Pfizer” is redirected to that pharmaceutical company’s stocks page, distilled the differences between the two vaccines.

According to the FDA:

The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a primary series of two doses, one month apart, to individuals 6 months through 17 years of age. The vaccine is also authorized to provide a third primary series dose at least one month following the second dose for individuals in this age group who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise. 

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a primary series of three doses in which the initial two doses are administered three weeks apart followed by a third dose administered at least eight weeks after the second dose in individuals 6 months through 4 years of age. 

Information about each vaccine is available in the fact sheets for healthcare providers administering vaccine and the fact sheets for recipients and caregivers.

Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines for infants through preschoolers differ in the number of shots they use, the dosage level and the eligibility age to receive them. Pfizer’s vaccine also appeared more effective than Moderna’s shots with children under 5, though the data is preliminary.

Pfizer’s vaccine is administered in three doses for children 6 months to 4 years old. The shots are dosed at 3 micrograms, one-tenth the level of what adults receive. Three shots were about 75% effective at preventing infection from omicron in 6-month- to 2-year-olds and 82% effective in 2- to 4-year-olds.

“It is crucial that parents who opt for Pfizer make sure their kids get the third shot to have protection against the virus,” read a CNBC report, presumably citing the FDA advisory committee hearings, which took place on June 14-15, and are available for public viewing via lengthy YouTube presentations.

“Two doses [of Pfizer] are only about 14% effective at preventing infection for kids under age 2, and 33% effective for those ages 2 to 4,” found the committee. Moreover, the committee reported that the Moderna vaccine is administered in two doses for children 6 months to 5 years old in dosages of 25 micrograms, one-fourth the level that adults receive.

“Moderna’s vaccine was about 51% effective at preventing infection from omicron for kids 6 months to 2 years old, and about 37% effective for kids ages 2 to 5 years old.” However, stronger protection against crippling illness is expected as children have higher antibody levels than adults who received two doses, noted the company.

Parents React

One mother from Snohomish, Washington, with whom the New American magazine spoke, said one of the greatest reasons she would not give her 18-month-old daughter the shot is her lack of trust in the medical establishment.

“The whole politicization of COVID has caused a lot of people, who are not necessarily anti-vax, to question the motivations of medical professionals, from across the spectrum of medical treatments,” said the 30-something, first-time mother.

“At this point, we have decided to stop giving our child all vaccines. It’s just not about deciding if the COVID vaccine is safe, but if any of the vaccines are a good treatment for our daughter.”

“As a parent,” she continued, “I don’t want to entrust my child to these doctors. Weighing the risks and benefits, it doesn’t make sense to give my healthy child a shot for a virus she will not get seriously ill from. I feel like the COVID shots are all marketing and that they just want parents to get it but aren’t giving a good reason why to get it.”

The mother noted that the Merriam-Webster definition of “vaccine” has changed from “an injection that no longer prevents illness” to one that “is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease lessens the symptoms of the disease.”

While the mass media is reporting what appears to be the vast majority of parents ecstatic about giving their kids the shot, one father of a toddler with whom I spoke told me emphatically that “we’re not getting any shots. Our baby is not getting any shots. At this time there is not enough of a reason to get them. We don’t know the side effects, and there could be other damages, such as myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation that has been strongly reported in younger male age groups. These are the effects we can’t foresee. Why take the chance?”

“I like to be informed,” the mom continued, “and we need to take a minute to do more research to be confident we’re making the right decision when it comes to the health of our child.”

As for informing the public, the FDA released this statement on Friday about extending “emergency” authorization for the Moderna vaccine because of its use for children six months through 17, whereas previously, it was approved for adults 18 and older.

While kindergartners through high-schoolers can now get the Moderna shot, the jab for this age group was previously released only through Pfizer.

Conversely, for the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, emergency use authorization was extended to include individuals six months through four years of age, while previously it was authorized for children five years and older. 

As the FDA promises “rigorous and comprehensive” reporting of the evaluation and safety of these shots, stating the “potential benefits of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the known and potential risks,” many parents are skeptical about the risks, even as the CDC has documented very clearly children are at low risk for contracting the coronavirus and becoming seriously ill.  

Notably, common side effects from the vaccines are pain at the injection site, irritability, and crying, loss of appetite, and sleepiness, according to the FDA.

The agency claims “very few children who received either shot developed a fever higher than 102 degrees Fahrenheit, and there were no cases of myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation, in Pfizer’s or Moderna’s trials,” so far.

With the backing of the CDC, the Biden White House confirms as many as ten million doses of vaccinations can begin being distributed as early as Tuesday. CNBC reported on Friday that the White House warned that “appointments might be limited initially, but every parent who wants to get their child vaccinated should be able to do so within weeks.”