BBC – Radio 4 Woman’s Hour -Pakistan Rape Laws

Comment by tonytran2015: Welcome to multiculturalism!

Last week Pakistan’s parliament approved a bill amending the country’s Islamic laws on rape. The Women’s Protection Bill will
seek to amend the heavily criticised Hudood Ordinance laws which insist that a rape victim must provide four male eyewitnesses to the crime...

Sen. Rand Paul: ‘We’ve Got Fauci Spreading Mistruths Across the Country’ | Aletho News

The Defender | October 13, 2021

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday took to the podium on Capitol Hill to criticize the media and Dr. Anthony Fauci for spreading mistruths about COVID, and for their role in causing unnecessary deaths by politicizing the science around COVID vaccines and treatments.

“We’ve got Dr. Fauci spreading mistruths across the country, saying we’ve got to forcibly vaccinate the kids,” Paul said. “There’s no science behind any of that.”

Paul accused CNN and others of misleading the public on a host of COVID-related of issues, including the need to vaccinate children:

“For example, the one truth you won’t be told is an 85-year-old has a 10,000 times greater chance of dying [from COVID] than a 10-year-old. Now you think we should treat them the same. If you were their doctor, do you think a 10-year-old should get the same healthcare and the same prescriptions for what they need to do as an 85-year-old? Makes no sense at all.”

Paul, who said he refused to get the COVID vaccine because he already had the virus, and has natural immunity, has been an outspoken critic of Fauci and the Biden administration for their handling of the pandemic.

In July, he accused Fauci of lying to Congress about approving funding for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate.

Paul told the U.S. Senate on Monday it’s time to stop censoring people just for asking questions about COVID policies, and get back to the ideas of classical liberalism, where “we debated things.”


The complications from sex reassignment surgery are horrific – but in today’s trans-activist world, we can’t talk about this — RT Op-ed

A culture of silence and fear stops people learning what really
can happen when you undergo ‘sex change’ operations. The trans lobby
tries to portray it as easy and straightforward – yet it’s anything
There is an unspoken price
being paid for the fashionable transgender theories of our day. There
are unseen victims, invisible, though in plain sight. They are hidden
because their supporters believe too blindly, and their detractors write
them off, and their misery is facilitated by a lack of open discussion
and a censorship of the facts.

These victims get overshadowed by
the concerns of the general public who are caught in a culture war, by
the parents who lose children to this strange and manufactured dogma,
and by the disinterested innocents subjected to bewildering
pronoun-usage and terrible Netflix adaptations.

Also on
Parents shouldn’t have a ‘veto’ on children’s trans medical decisions? Should we let the kids smoke and drink too?

These hidden victims are the young transgenders
themselves, who are led to believe so strongly that they can ‘change
their sex’ that they undergo sex-reassignment surgery, only to find
themselves not just disappointed by the result, but horrified.

are true victims, in the sense that many of them suffer horrific and
irreversible physical damage and pain, which often leads to them
committing suicide.

may have heard of these high rates of suicide among transgender people.
What many people are not aware of is that this suicide problem is not
predominantly due to social rejection, bullying, or self-doubt. It is
due to the complex, unnatural, and somewhat shady nature of the surgery
involved in ‘sex changes,’ and its after-effects. I will focus in this
article on the male-to-female cases, as the list of complications in
these operations is long and harrowing.

It should go without
saying at this point that a person cannot really change their sex; it
comprises your genetic make-up at the molecular level (XX/XY genes). A
man who seeks to become a woman will never have a baby. The surgeon’s
knife is not a ‘magical’ transformation, it is a complicated cosmetic
operation, changing one’s outward appearance. It is a complex, fraught
rearranging of flesh.

Many young people today believe (and are
being taught) that they can elect their sex like they choose an item of
clothing, and go through with ‘surgery’ that will wholly transform them.
Often the result leads to disappointment, and there are many stories of
regret, and of (too late) reticence just before committing to the
operation. These stories are unfashionable to the ears of gender-theory
enthusiasts, who wish to forever believe that sex is a fluid and
insubstantial thing, and can be easily changed.

With male-to-female surgeries, post operative complications occur
at a rate of 32.5% (that is a one-in-three chance of complication),
and there is a re-operation rate of 21.7%. This is insanely high for any
kind of medical procedure, let alone considering this is an elective
surgery, and one that is performed, generally, on healthy, functioning
bodies. They now call it ‘gender affirmation surgery’ so that even the
language is deceptively adapted to sound positive and non-threatening.

In this sense, medical ethics and genuine concern (not virtue signalling) for these young people appears to be out the window.


is not often discussed (likely because it is not a topic for the
squeamish) exactly what are the common complications resulting from
modern sex-change surgeries. If you can bear it, I will attempt to
elucidate a few of the male-to-female complications, while seeking not
to be overly graphic. Those who are faint of heart may wish to stop
reading here.

The patient’s “neovagina” is partly constructed
from an inverted scrotum and penis, therefore any hair-bearing skin used
for the “neo-urethra” can cause
chronic infection and obstruction. In vaginoplasty, failure to perform
preoperative or intraoperative hair removal can lead to inaccessible
hair deep within the vagina. This can result in a hairball, which can be
a nidus for debris and infection.Infections are common and known to be
incredibly painful, according to sufferer accounts.

is no natural lubrication for a neovagina. In a procedure called
colovaginoplasty, a lubricant is sourced by opening up the abdomen and
using part of the colon to join the gap and make the vagina. The
lubrication comes from the bowel, and is constant (not based on
arousal). Post-op patient questions vary from, ‘Is it dangerous for my
partner to ingest this lubricant?’, to ‘Will I need to wear a pad
forever?’ (Often, yes).

Another complication
is known as a Rectoneovaginal Fistula, which is an ‘abnormal connection
between the rectum and neovagina’. The result is that the neovagina
begins to secrete fecal matter, resulting in permanent diaper-wearing.
There are many difficulties that can arise when you decide to open a new
hole in your pelvis that was not there naturally.

Sufferers have
complained about ‘never being able to have sex again’ – in some ways an
odd complaint after making the decision to castrate yourself. Another
common complaint is the necrotising of the neovagina, where the
constructed vagina (or portions of it) simply dies off.

surgery in general requires perpetual clinical follow-up and post-op
monitoring, as well as a lifetime reliance on estrogen and other

The wider trans community and the wealthy trans lobby
do not want any such negative information about transgenderism to get
out. They maintain that it is impossible to tell the difference between a
vagina and a negovagina, but this is not true. Many who undergo the
procedure learn the hard way that they have caused irreversible damage
to themselves, and their suicide rates are astronomical. There are many
stories of chronic pain and tissue necrosis that are either too graphic
to relay, and there is too much fear of censorship and legal threats
from the trans lobby for sufferers to speak out.

Also on
Tyrannical trans activists are trampling on free speech and democracy… and losing support in the process

The sad result of this is that many confused kids, often
encouraged by virtue-signalling parents and teachers, are being led down
the path that leads to these horrors. Nobody seems to care about the
realities that await them, that there is a very high chance their lives
will be ruined and they will suffer great pain and remorse. Yet the
gender theory activists still pretend that you can easily change your
sex with surgery.

These people require rigorous mental health
treatment, real role models, and a society which does not encourage them
to mutilate themselves.

Democrats Tuck Female Draft Into Defense Bill
The Pentagon will have to start drafting women in order to receive funding after House Democrats amended the defense budget. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D., Pa.) put forward a measure on Wednesday to require all women over the age of 18 to register for selective service. Houlahan said her policy would best draw on the “talents…

Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission – JONATHAN TURLEY

Ashli Babbitt (Twitter)

Here is my column in The Hill
on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto
unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The
interview was notable in an admission that Byrd made about what he
actually saw . . . and what he did not see.

Here is the column:

“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial
interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed
Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol
Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly
contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement.
But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed
the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions
over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.

Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Trump.
She came to Washington to protest the certification of the presidential
Electoral College results and stormed into the Capitol when security
lines collapsed. She had no criminal record but clearly engaged in
criminal conduct that day by entering Capitol and disobeying police
commands. The question, however, has been why this unarmed trespasser
deserved to die.

When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the
chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers
standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force
their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken
window. That is when Byrd killed her.

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over
the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre
review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed
to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably
does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it
stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer
used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer
did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did
not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and
that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic,
misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the
high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor,
has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each
particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only
against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed
suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow
officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders.
Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently
was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head.
Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted,
found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said
he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law
professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past
have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who
had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared “no further action will be taken” in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the
chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of
that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I
tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to
enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to
take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and
myself and my fellow officers.”

Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not
fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions
are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat
from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the
window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless
lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since
then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any
other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed
with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in
the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could
have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle
or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who
tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police
stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those
protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes
showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. Many violent
protesters wear backpacks but officers are not allowed to just shoot
them in case they contain bombs or other devices.

According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would
not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in
defending buildings. Just as Byrd was apparently authorized to shoot
Babbitt as the first person through the window, he presumably could have
shot the next ten or more persons. Likewise, in cities like Portland,
police could have shot dozens protesters trying to take over police
stations and courthouses, including many wearing backpacks.

Politico reported that
Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his
Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center
complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant
and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect
him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by
the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered
by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.”
To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations
of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to
condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her

Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal
force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to
which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of
us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job
that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of
lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using
lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary
embodiments of the principles governing their profession.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Chase Bank Cancels General Mike Flynn’s Credit Cards

Comment by tonytran2015: Emergency Services may next refuse to attend to cases from political opponents.
Chase Bank has canceled General Mike Flynn’s personal credit card, citing “possible reputational risk to our company.” 🚨🚨BREAKING: Chase Bank cancels its credit card accounts with General Flynn citing possible “reputational risk” to their company. In case there was any doubt what is happening in this country. […]

The Swinging Pendulum | PA Pundits – International
By Burt Prelutsky ~

Inevitably, in overcompensating in favor of one group, you wind up mistreating others.

It is probably inevitable that in the process of making up for past misbehavior that one over-compensates. But it is equally inevitable that in overcompensating in favor of one group, you wind up mistreating others. For instance, because once upon a time, blacks were brutalized in parts of this nation, we now see them brutalizing others all over the country. And because of the overcompensation, the authorities turn a blind eye to it. At times, as when Kamala Harris suggested that people donate to a fund to provide bail for the looters and the vandalizers in Minneapolis, those in authority actively encourage it. We have seen something similar taking place with homosexuals, lesbians and even those oddballs who claim they have the ability to invalidate biology and change their sex the way I understand the appropriately named clownfish do. In the past, there’s no denying that the sexually maladjusted were stigmatized in society. So it’s no surprise, America being the loony bin it has become, that today we see schools, businesses, even the military, turning themselves into buffoonish characters in their wokish attempt to accommodate these people who shouldn’t be mistreated, but also shouldn’t be permitted to dictate terms of surrender to the rest of us...

NYC Doesn’t Allow Immigration Status to Be Checked But Requires Checking Vaccination Status; NYC Gives Free Healthcare to Illegal Immigrants | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together

Mining Awareness +

NYC Mayor De Blasio’s proof of vaccination order is simply silly, considering this fact, which appeared in a US CDC Publication: “Covid-19 Outbreak in Mass: 74% of Infected Fully Vaccinated; 80% of Hospitalized Fully Vaccinated; Viral Load in Vaccinated Appears Similar to Unvaccinated On average the individuals had only been fully vaccinated for less than 3 months; the proposed boosters are for after 8 months and are not specific for the Delta variant.

By the time they have a booster for the Delta variant, there will be another variant, especially in NYC which is a sanctuary city providing social welfare for illegal immigrants. Maybe they need Covid-19 breathalyzers.

These were fully vaccinated individuals, whereas De Blasio’s only requiring people to be partially vaccinated: “Proof of vaccination” means proof of receipt of at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use or licensed…

View original post 1,817 more words

Woke Nonsense Is Warping Everyday Life
Authored by Victor Davis Hanson, Americans are growing angrier by the day, but in a way different from prior sagebrush revolts such as the 1960s Silent Majority or the Tea Party movement over a decade ago. The rage this time is not just fueled by conservatives. For the first…

BBC caught be racist and unjust (again) – © blogfactory

BBC Peddle Racist Propaganda Against Palestinians, Justify Ethnic Cleansing

BBC Peddle Racist Propaganda Against Palestinians, Justify Ethnic Cleansing

BBC Peddle Racist Propaganda Against Palestinians, Justify Ethnic Cleansing

Despite claiming to be an outlet that does not tolerate racism and that prides itself on being “objective”, the BBC has spouted some of the very worst anti-Palestinian rhetoric on the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Sheikh Jarrah and completely ignored the most important facts in order to provide cover for Israel.

Robert Inlakesh

A “property dispute” is what the BBC is calling an Israeli takeover of Palestinian homes, ethnically cleansing them, to replace them with another racial group. A case so clear-cut that a toddler could comprehend is being turned into not only a pseudo-legal debate, but also a case to try and demonize those who are being oppressed.

The BBC turns the Palestinians into the bad guys with headlines such as “Palestinians and Israelis baulk at evictions compromise” or “Palestinians reject offer to end eviction threats”. Without having to be made to bow their heads in shame, the BBC actually wrote the following in an explainer article, which is supposed to tell people why Palestinians are being kicked out of their homes: “There is a long-running dispute over who owns land in the area, which has seen Jewish settler groups pursue evictions against Palestinians who had moved in as refugees.”

Covering up for racism and pretending International Law doesn’t exist

To begin with, there is no legal “dispute” over who owns the land. This may sound funny if you have been watching mainstream Western Press, but this is simply the most ridiculous claim that can be made about the forced ethnic-displacement of Palestinians from the town of Sheikh Jarrah.

Sheikh Jarrah is an area, populated by Palestinians and Illegal Israeli settlers who have taken over some of their homes. The neighborhood currently targeted by an illegal settler organisation is located in East Jerusalem. This means that Sheikh Jarrah resides in an illegally occupied Palestinian territory, as recognised by the United Nations and every authoritative organisation on the planet.

Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967, since that time it illegally annexed the territory. The annexation is not currently acknowledged as legal by any government on the planet, except Israel itself. Why is this important to understand? Well, this means that Israel’s courts, whether they be local to Jerusalem or whether it be the high court of the country, are completely invalid inside of occupied territories. Yes, that’s right, the BBC just completely brushed over the fact that there is no legal case to be made, because the case in and of itself is illegal to begin with. So it is either that the BBC as an outlet has to formally release a statement supporting, on their behalf, Israel’s illegal annexation of the occupied territory and their abandonment of the international consensus for a two-state solution, or they must issue corrections to every single piece they have produced on this issue.

Israel currently uses a law called the ‘1950 Absentees Property Law’, labelled by Human Rights Watch as discriminatory, which allows for Jews (but not Palestinians) to claim lands which they argue used to be owned by Jews. In the case of Sheikh Jarrah, even by this law itself, there is no argument for taking the homes of Palestinians based upon former Jewish ownership, because the homes were literally built by the Jordanians to house Palestinian refugees expelled from their original places of origin by Israel in 1948.

The decision to expel these Palestinians is also based upon a racist doctrine dating back to the 1970’s, when the Israeli government decided that over 70% of people in the city needed to be Jewish in order to maintain the correct ethnic “balance” to allow Israel to remain a Jewish State. Yes, Palestinians are literally being driven out of their homes, forced into homelessness, and having their property literally taken over by illegal Israeli settlers, just because of their race.

There is no other reason that Palestinians are being forced out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. The BBC is, however, making Palestinians look like they are the irrational ones for not accepting the takeover of their homes based solely on their ethnicity.

So what about the settler organisations which take the Palestinian families to court – because they are not Jewish – in order to seize the rights to their homes? Well, the main organisation responsible for launching the illegal “legal case” against the residents of Sheikh Jarrah, is named Nahalat Shimon and is owned by a company registered in the United States of America. It is fighting to have not only Israeli citizens but duel American-Israeli citizens, who are of Jewish origin, take the homes of Palestinians. Somehow, the “unbiased” BBC completely glosses over the fact that Americans, born in New York City, are claiming the homes of Palestinians in an illegally occupied territory, due to a court case launched by an organisation owned by a US registered company.

There are so many more aspects of this case which need to be debunked, but perhaps the most important to end on is the point about Palestinians rejecting a “compromise” made by the Israeli high court. It is not a rational compromise to have a foreign organisation claim your home, force you to pay them rent and have them remain as your landlord – with the threat of expulsion at any moment – when you are being targeted purely because of your ethnicity. It is ridiculous and racist to assert that Palestinians are in the wrong here, when they are simply sticking to what rights are afforded to them under international law.

But hey, the BBC seems to have no idea what international law is or that racism exists when it comes to issues surrounding the Palestinians. Apparently journalists and professional news organisations are supposed to just completely drop all their professional skills and serve the State propaganda of what Human Rights Watch call an Apartheid regime, when it comes to Israel-Palestine.


(TLB) published this article from The Last American Vagabond

About the author: Robert Inlakesh is a documentary filmmaker, journalist, writer, Middle-East analyst & news correspondent for The Last American Vagabond.