I was starting to write an article suggesting that President Trump’s VACCINE SAFETY COMMISSION should take a hard look at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
Why? The Liberal Democrats claim the AAP as their do all, be all, INDEPENDENT experts on everything from vaccines to proper child care. So much so that they OFFICIALLY wrote them into California’s Mandatory Vaccine Bill (SB 277) as THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY…
More, this AAP was the one who published in their journal those original “studies” claiming that vaccines did NOT cause autism. Yeah, THAT AAP.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
The AAP is NOT What it Appears to be…
They are something entirely different.
I had written an earlier article about who the AAP really is, who is funding them, and what they were really up to way back in 2011. It was called “Want to Keep Your Baby Healthy? Stay Away From Pediatricians… “. And it said:
“I’ll be blunt. Pediatricians, these days, are con-men – only here to push more-and-more dangerous, useless(?), vaccines on an unsuspecting public. They have absolutely no other function.
They are, in fact, a whole section of US medicine that we could well do without. It didn’t used to be that way – but it is now.
Supposedly, Pediatricians developed as child specialists – and, to hear their representatives talk, they are the one-stop shop for all health issues pertaining to children.
In that article I had pointed out that the AAP, in 2010, all together amassed $126,189,033.00 in total 2010 income. WHERE they got that money was no mystery. It was all right there on their IRS tax form 990s. Mine was a compelling argument against the AAP claiming to be AN INDEPENDENT VACCINE AUTHORITY.
So, I wanted Bobby Kennedy Jr’s Vaccine Safety Commission to look CLOSELY at who these people really are, and determine what their role is as vaccine pushers, force-stabbing innocent American children with Made-in-China death pus tubelets.
But, as I usually do, I started asking around about the subject to see if there was anything else of interest I didn’t already know. That’s when a California activist friend of mine (with school-age children) said: “Did you know that Pediatricians will take your child into private room and question them about whether or not there are guns in your house?”
THAT got my attention.
To me, anyone who wants to know where I keep my guns is up to no good. Yeah, I am DEFINITELY one of those. It was time to broaden the scope of my inquiry.
And then life REALLY got interesting…
So, let’s look at who these AAP people really are…
I was shocked to find out that the AAP were, actually, ultra-liberal gun control whackos – and if they could get a child alone, they questioned them about how many guns their parents had in the house and where they kept them. Then what did they do with that information?
I’ll link you to their policy on that below.
Isn’t THAT interesting?
But it was NOTHING compared to what I found next.
Few know that in 2010 the AAP started promoting the idea of training American Pediatricians to, in their offices, do what they called “a nick” – removing a girl-child’s clitoris.
I kid you not. They REALLY did this.
Although Female Genitalia Mutilation (FGM) is illegal in every State, and by US law, the AAP began to pressure legislators to change that law claiming that over 500,000 American little girls had to be taken out of the country to get this surgery done – and that “they” the pediatricians, could do it better, and cheaper, here.
Is that sinking in yet?
From the Wikipedia AAP page:
“In April 2010, the academy revised its policy statement on female genital cutting, with one part of the new policy proving controversial. Although condemning female genital cutting overall, this statement suggested that current federal law banning the practice had the unintended consequence of driving families to perform the procedures in other countries, where these girls faced increased risk. As a possible compromise, this policy statement suggested that physicians have the option to perform a ceremonial “nick” on girls as a last resort to prevent them from being sent overseas for full circumcision. This particular position proved controversial to advocates for a full ban on female genital cutting under any circumstances and concern from other medical groups that even a “nick” would be condoning this widely rejected procedure. One month later, the academy retracted this policy statement.“
But, that wasn’t the end of it. It is still being promoted by liberal Democrats…
Just so we are all on the same page here let’s review what FGM actually is. From the Wikipedia FGM article we get:
Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within communities from countries in which FGM is common. UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women alive today in 30 countries (27 African countries, Indonesia, Iraqi Kurdistan and Yemen) had undergone the procedures.
Typically carried out by a traditional circumciser using a blade, FGM is conducted from days after birth to puberty and beyond. In half the countries for which national figures are available, most girls are cut before the age of five. Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure (known as infibulation), a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth.
The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women’s sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.[a] The health effects depend on the procedure; they can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits.
The AAP, of course, saw this as a HUGE profit center for their membership…
Then too, it would fit the needs of the Agenda 21 globalists and their intent to reduce Earth’s population from nine (9) billion to five hundred (500) million by the year 2021 (now moved to 2030).
But, there was backlash… and the AAP changed their (public) position – OR DID THEY?
The idea hasn’t gone away.
Six years later TWO well-known ultra-liberal publications – Newsweek and CNN promoted the idea – just a few months before the Presidential elections
On February 2, 2016, just a year ago, Newsweek Magazine posted an article titled “U.S. STUDY PROPOSES NICKING GENITALS AS ‘COMPROMISE’ FOR FGM IN WESTERN COUNTRIES…”. In that article Newsweek bleats:
“A controversial new study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says “nicking” the genitals of young girls is an acceptable compromise for the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the West.
Arguing that criminalizing FGM in Western countries such as the U.S. and U.K. has pushed the practice underground, the authors suggest a “compromise solution” that would legally permit a minimal form of genital mutilation “in recognition of its cultural and religious obligations.” Despite being perceived as a practice linked to Islam, FGM is a cultural practice that has no basis in religion. No religious texts prescribe FGM, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), while Human Rights Watch says the practice is “erroneously linked” to religion and “is not particular to any religious faith.”
In the study, published on Monday, U.S.-based authors Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, director of quality, obstetrics and gynecology at the MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland and Dr. Allan Jacobs, professor of reproductive medicine at Stony Brook University, write that “in order to better protect female children from the serious and long-term harms of some types of non-therapeutic [FGM], we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia.”
Ultra-liberal Trump hating CNN went much further in it’s promotion of removing an American girl’s clitoris with their production of a TV segment depicting how horrible the procedure was in Africa, promoting the idea of legalizing a “nick” here in the US.
I suspect that if Hillary Clinton had been elected this procedure would be REQUIRED by now.
Here is a segment CNN’s video titled “Doctors urge ‘compromise’ on female genital mutilation” from February 23, 2016:
How do they do it?
Here is their answer:
“We sit down the girl. Someone blindfolds her and lays her down on the ground. Then we cut. We cut three times. Then you take the ethanol spirit like this, and you pour it on the wound. it is a bit painful but it stops bleeding. We blindfold them and put hands over their mouths. They don’t even scream, because if they do … they can’t make noise because of what other girls might think of them.”
What is CNN promoting here? The fact that this procedure can be done in this country much cleaner and neater – and save the parents the air fare? They just want the law changed to allow it.
If you want to watch the whole two minute video you have to click here, and see it on CNN’s site.
So, why were the liberals trying to make this happen in the US?
I am about to show you.
You are not going to like the twenty minute video I am sending you to watch on FaceBook. It is called: “Then they were refugees.”
The video is about what is REALLY happening in the European Union with the refugee situation.
Click on the video box to watch it. The liberal media in Europe is just as globalist as it is here.
In short, the liberal Democrat Globalists, under the banner of Hillary Clinton, wanted “Open Borders” duplicating in America what is happening in the EU.
They wanted our little girls to be prepared for the multi-cultural (muslim) requirements of those so-called “refugees.” And, those “refugees” come from a culture, and religion, that requires women to be “cut” so they do not enjoy sex.
Is this kind of thing OK with liberal Democrat women?
Looks like it.
Thank God we elected Donald Trump…
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen