Election In Anambra South East Nigeria: Separatist Group IPOB cancels sit-at-home order, urges electorate to vote

THE Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB) has announced an immediate suspension of its sit-at-home order issued a few days ago.

In a statement released on Thursday and signed by Spokesperson of IPOB Emma Powerful, the group said it was yielding to the continuous pleas of elders from the region.

“Following the genuine intervention of our elders, esteemed traditional institutions /rulers and religious leaders, and after due consideration of the positive impacts of their engagement, and sequel to the fact that our elders have spoken in our terms, the Leadership of IPOB ably led by MAZI NNAMDI Kanu hereby and immediately CALL OFF THE ONE WEEK SIT AT HOME earlier declared to commence tomorrow, November 5 to November 10, 2021.”


The group also emphasised the role played by mothers in the suspension of the order,“We have equally considered several appeals by our mothers who earn their living based on their daily economic activities which will obviously be affected if Biafra land is locked down for one whole week. It’s never our intention to add to the pains of our people, hence our decision to suspend the sit-at-home.”

It urged the people of Anambra State to go out and vote in large numbers for any candidate of their choice on Saturday, November 6, peacefully and feel free to exercise their franchise.

The group, however, claimed it had credible intelligence suggesting that the State Security Service (SSS) had concluded arrangements to deploy a branch of their group to Anambra State on the election day to unleash mayhem on the people and blame it on IPOB.

The secessionist group called on Anambra citizens to be vigilant and avoid rigging of any kind.

The ICIR had earlier reported that IPOB declared a compulsory one-week sit-at-home to prevent people from voting in the Saturday election in protest against the continued detention of their leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

She Is A Treasure To Be Pursued; Not Prey To Be Hunted

In this post, I am going to talk about some things that the church tends to be hush-hush about. First of all, God created sex. It is not wrong to talk about sex. God created sex to be kept within the boundaries that He has set. When people go outside of God’s boundaries, then there is a problem.

I highlight certain issues, not for the sake of gender wars. It is the opposite. I desire unity. There is a spiritual problem in the world. This spiritual problem sometimes manifests as disunity and contempt between men and women. God is love. I would much rather see things done His way in love. This is why I speak out on various issues.

That said, there are some bad analogies out there. One such analogy is that a man hunts a woman the way a lion hunts it’s prey. A lot of men refer to men as hunters, even in reference to pursuing a woman. They use the word “hunter” when encouraging women to allow themselves to be pursued by a man. As I stated, I have even heard the lion/prey analogy.

There are different ideologies behind phrases and analogies. I think the context in which many use the word hunter in these cases is not meant to be predatorial. However, I believe it is important to watch what we say, because whether we realize it or not, words are seed and take root in people’s minds.

Therefore, words plant ideas, and ideas produce behaviors. We should be mindful of what we say.

There is nothing wrong with being a hunter, but a man should not hunt a woman down, as if he is a beast looking to devour her as prey. While I agree with the principle that a man should initiate pursuit and a woman should respond, I do not view a man as a hunter, and a woman as his prey.

A woman is to be treasured as a valuable human being. The man who desires her should pursue and woo her in an attempt to win her over.

 

There should be nothing predatorial about the relationship dynamics between a man and a woman. I have also taken note that when referring to sexual activity, plenty men use violent words to describe the act. I do not believe that God’s intent was violence. It is supposed to be real intimacy, mutual giving, mutual pleasure, and in many cases, reproduction.

In my mind, some of the people who use aggressive terminology are well-meaning, no doubt. I think it is just lingo they picked up from society’s influences. Historically, women have been objectified and sexuality has been viewed as a power dynamic; a conquesting event where the man conquers the woman who surrenders to him.

The vocabulary used has often been of a violent and aggressive nature. Descriptions of the pursuit of a woman by a man includes analogies such as hunting, the way a lion hunts. Descriptions of sexual activity are sometimes described as something a man does to a woman, instead of with a woman. Do we see a problem with this?

Words used to describe the man’s actions are “banged”, “nailed”, “broke”, etc. Naturally, harsh, animalistic verbs describe the treatment of the woman. These words are not typically used to describe actions that affect the man.

For some, sex is about the man’s power, conquest, and the woman’s surrender.

Characteristics describing men’s anatomy are powerful words such as rod, hammer, and stick, while women’s anatomy is referred to with weaker words such as an alternative for the word cat. Hmmm. Interesting. There is nothing weak about a woman’s anatomy! She gives birth and goes through an awful lot. Her body can do too many amazing things to be described using weak terminology!

I believe the reason so many people have a toxic view of sexuality and some women end up feeling used, sexually repressed, and objectified is because of the unhealthy, imbalanced way some people view relationships and sexual dynamics. There seems to always be a sort of power struggle.

This is not God’s intent. God made everything good and beautiful. The adversary aims to distort and pervert it. This post is to shed light on some things that people carelessly say and do. Certain things said are harmful to our interpretations of and perspectives on the good things God has created. Consequently, these toxic perspectives have aided in toxic behaviors.

Keep in mind the context of the following verse, and keep in mind the first and second great commandments and the golden rule at the same time.

 

Remember, Jesus said these are the two greatest commandments:

Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. 

And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ 

The second is equally important:

‘Love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these.”

The two great commandments are important to remember, because 1 Corinthians 7: 4 can be, and has been used out of context to imply that a man and a woman are allowed to harm each other’s bodies or do whatever they want to each other. It has especially been the case that some men have implied that a man gets to do what he wants sexually, whenever he wants with his wife.

This is not true, because if this were the case, it would defy the 2nd great commandment and golden rule. Instead, 1 Corinthians 7: 4 is proof that the husband and wife give themselves to each other, for the sake of mutual pleasure and intimacy, and reproduction.

It is a love thing. There should be no taking, forcing, or harm inflicted. There should be no power struggle, but mutual giving and receiving. The man is made to initiate in the giving.

 

I am also highlighting this, because even some professed Christian men have a strange, power- seeking and distorted view of the dynamics between a husband and wife. This includes men who are public figures. They perpetuate their ideas. They preach to the masses.

Some people eagerly adhere to their harmful ideologies. There are women who end up feeling used and objectified. Then some men wonder why their wife may not be as sexually responsive as they hope she would be. God did not wire women to be positively responsive to, or attracted to being objectified.

We are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We are to love others as we love ourselves. This means that we don’t get to harm other people for our own selfish gratification. It means that we don’t try to force or demand our way, because we would not want someone to do that to us. Yet, each person should have a selfless attitude.

While in compliance to the two great commandments, this is to be accepted and enjoyed also: “The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.” 1 Corinthians 7: 4. As we can see, God’s design is balanced, beautiful, and beneficial.

Democrats’ Self-inflicted Wound Is Providential

The recent Republican victories were not so much a vindication of Republican policies as a rejection of the extremism of Democratic leaders and their tolerance for radical hard-left policies. The recent election demonstrates that voters see through the

Source: The Democrats’ Self-inflicted Wound

Hamas’s Growing Role in Iran’s Scheme to Encircle Israel

A senior Hamas delegation that visited Iran in October and met with Supreme Leader Khamenei is the latest sign of the close partnership between the Sunni Palestinian terror organization and the Shi’ite Islamic Republic. Hamas has an important role in

Source: Hamas’s Growing Role in Iran’s Scheme to Encircle Israel

The Pfizer Shot Kills 12-Year-Old In Germany And Lands Another 12-Year-Old in ICU in Thailand

by The COVID World

GERMANY – A 12-year-old girl from the district of Cuxhaven has died two days after receiving her second Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Initial evidence suggests that there is a causal relationship with the vaccination.

The district had decided to make the case public after rumors surfaced on social media. The news comes just as the US has  started vaccinating 5-11 year olds with the Pfizer vaccine.

The Cuxhaven health department had ordered an autopsy which has already taken place. According to the preliminary autopsy report, done by experts from the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, it was concluded that it is likely that her sudden death was due to the vaccine.

The head of the health department in the district of Cuxhaven, Kai Dehne, said:

“We are confronted with a particularly tragic case here. Statistically, serious vaccination side effects resulting in death are extremely rare. But 100% of the family is ruthlessly affected.”

Other causes cannot yet be completely ruled out before the evaluation of fine tissue examinations, the results of which will be made available today.

Read the full article at The COVID World.

12-Year-Old Girl Fighting For Her Life In ICU After Heart Problems Caused By The Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine

by The COVID World

PHOTHARAM, RATCHABURI – A 12-year-old girl in Thailand is fighting for her life in ICU after suffering heart complications caused by the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The 12-year-old Grade 6 pupil, who is a student at Wat Don Sai School, received her shot on October 19th. Several days later, she complained to her mother about chest pain and shortness of breath.

Her symptoms gradually worsened and she was hospitalized at Ratchaburi Hospital. She was then transferred to the Children’s Hospital in Bangkok where she’s currently intubated on a ventilator.

The heartbroken mother posted a message on Facebook yesterday with a picture of her daughter receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at Chet Samian Hospital.

She said:

“My 12-year-old daughter is now in the ICU. A ventilator is required after she was diagnosed with coronary thrombosis. This occurred less than a week after she was vaccinated.

She was always a strong child.”

The father of the pupil, Mr. Pipatpong Tanpanich, said that on October 19th, at 2 pm, she and her siblings had received their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. She had pain in her arm for 3 days but recovered.

2 days later, she developed a dry cough and chest pain so she was taken to Ratchaburi Hospital where her condition was considered so severe, that she was rushed to the Children’s Hospital in Bangkok where she was diagnosed with coronary thrombosis.

Dr. Pajaree Areerob, an MD at Ratchaburi Hospital, told reporters that they’d never seen a case like this before.

A Self-Reading, Self-Interpreting Bible?

One of the Protestant Reformation’s most dangerous ideas is that Scripture is somehow self-interpreting

One of the most dangerous ideas of the Protestant Reformation is that Scripture is somehow self-interpreting. According to this view, Scripture is so clear that we don’t need an infallible Catholic Church. The idea originates with Luther, but Protestants often believe it’s something taught by Scripture itself. Professor John Gerstner (1914-1996) argued in favor of this view against Catholicism by saying:

First, Rome denies that the Bible is a self-interpreting revelation. The Bible declares itself to be self-explanatory. This is called the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures (the see-through-ableness of the Scripture). It may be understood in its own light. What is obscure in one passage will be clearer in another. What is incomplete here is completed there. What is a figure in one place is a commentary in another.

The claim that the Bible is “self-interpreting revelation” is not only unbiblical, but incoherent, like saying “the book reads itself.” Someone interprets the Bible. He may do that infallibly or fallibly, well or poorly, but the text doesn’t interpret itself.

Get the new book: a teacher-of-strange-things by Catholic Answers Live host Cy Kellett

We see this in action within Scripture. Jesus tells the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt. 13:24-30). At St. Peter’s request, he then explains the parable’s meaning (vv. 36-43). The parable didn’t explain itself: Jesus explained it. Likewise, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus walks with two of his disciples and, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). St. Luke doesn’t say Scripture interpreted itself to the disciples. Jesus interpreted it.

Likewise, St. Philip was led by the Holy Spirit to an Ethiopian eunuch. “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31). Notably, the man didn’t reply, “Of course I understand it! The book of Isaiah is self-interpreting.” Instead, someone (this time, Philip) explained its meaning.

This is the role of the Church, but it’s also the role of the theologian and the preacher. St. Paul tells St. Timothy to “attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:11). That is, he’s called to read Scripture and then to explain what it means, just as Jesus did in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-22).

So where does the Bible ever “declare itself to be self-explanatory,” or promise that “what is a figure in one place is a commentary in another”? Gerstner offers no citation for the simple reason that none exists. Even the idea that “what is obscure in one passage will be clearer in another” is question-begging, since Christians don’t agree about which passages are clear and which are obscure. As the Calvinist historian Alister McGrath explains:

Luther and Zwingli were unable to agree on the meaning of such phrases as “this is my body” (which Luther interpreted literally and Zwingli metaphorically) and “at the right hand of God” (which—with apparent inconsistency on both sides—Luther interpreted metaphorically and Zwingli literally). The exegetical optimism of the early Reformation may be regarded as foundering on this rock: Scripture, it seemed, was far from easy to interpret.

In response to the Catholic observation that Scripture needs interpretation, Gerstner says:

If the Bible must be interpreted by the Church in order to render its meaning certain, then the interpretation of the Church will have to be interpreted by another authority to make its meaning certain, and then there will need to be an interpreter of the interpreter, and so on ad infinitum.

If this were true, it would mean that no one could ever explain anything. That is, Gerstner isn’t so much arguing against Catholicism as he is arguing against communication and knowledge of the truth in general. If his argument were true, it would prove agnosticism, not Protestantism.

It’s also logically unsound. Certain passages of the Bible admit of multiple interpretations: they could mean A or B. If the Church clarifies, “It means A and not B,” that clarification doesn’t necessitate some further clarification—the argument simply doesn’t follow. If the Ethiopian needs Philip to explain Isaiah, it doesn’t follow that he must also need someone else to explain Philip, and so on ad infinitum.

But Gerstner gives his whole argument away immediately after this:

Our various Protestant church courts actually provide authoritative interpretations on most points when such decisions are necessary. But there is a difference between authoritative and infallible decisions. Compare, for example, the necessity for an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. A Supreme Court performs that task. Yet what American believes the Supreme Court is infallible? Still, its decisions prevail as a matter of necessity. . . .

The Protestant church has provided for authority so that decisions can be rendered when necessary, but has avoided the error of investing this authority with infallibility. The Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which it has not made and that is the greatest of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err.

So Gerstner actually recognizes the need for the Church to provide authoritative interpretations “when necessary.” The difference is simply that Protestant churches’ decisions can’t be trusted, because we don’t know if they’re erroneous, and they can err, have erred, and will err.

This is a remarkable concession for a few reasons. First, if Scripture is as clear and self-interpreting as Gerstner is claiming, why aren’t the Protestant teachings clear? How is it that there’s more than one Protestant denomination, and why isn’t each denomination sure that its own interpretation of Scripture is the right one? In one and the same argument, Gerstner is arguing that Scripture is so clear that there’s no need for an infallible Church to interpret it, but also that it’s so unclear that Protestants can’t escape from continually erring in interpreting it, and that the greatest error possible is thinking that we cannot err in our interpretation.

Second, the stakes here are higher than with the Supreme Court. The Constitution isn’t divinely inspired; Scripture is. If a denomination gets its “authoritative interpretation” wrong, it’s forcing its members to either go into schism or accept heresy, both of which are condemned in the New Testament. But since the “various Protestant church courts actually provide authoritative interpretations” that contradict one another and cannot be trusted as free from error, that’s precisely what Protestantism has to offer.

The fact that well-meaning and well read Protestants disagree with one another on the meaning of biblical passages should suffice to prove that Scripture isn’t self-interpreting. The fact that God gave us Scripture “to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15) should make Protestants care enough to find a Church capable of reliably interpreting what Scripture means without the constant danger that they might be endorsing heresy.

The Sex Traffickers on America’s Police Forces

by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute

Sexual predation by police officers happens far more often than people in the business are willing to admit.”—Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper

We are a nation on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

Undeniably, the blowback from COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates continues to reverberate around the country, impacting the nation’s struggling workplaces, choking the economy and justifying all manner of authoritarian tyrannies being inflicted on the populace by state and federal governments.

Yet while it is easy to be distracted by political theater, distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and divided over authoritarian lockdowns and mandates, there are still darker forces afoot that cannot—should not—must not be ignored.

Here’s a news flash for you: there are sexual predators on America’s police forces.

Indeed, when it comes to sex trafficking—the buying and selling of young girls, boys and women for sex—police have become both predators and pimps. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, “Hundreds of police officers across the country have turned from protectors to predators, using the power of their badge to extort sex.”

Victims of sex trafficking report that police are among those “buying” young girls and women for sex. Incredibly, this COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in even greater numbers of children being preyed upon by sex traffickers.

Unfortunately, rather than being part of the solution, America’s police forces—riddled with corruption, brutality, sexual misconduct and drug abuse—have largely become part of the problem.

In New York, for instance, seven NYPD cops—three sergeants, two detectives and two officers—were accused of running brothels that sold 15-minute sexual encounters, raking in more than $2 million over the course of 13 months.

In California, a police sergeant—a 16-year veteran of the police force—was arrested for raping a 16-year-old girl who was being held captive and sold for sex in a home in an upscale neighborhood.

A week-long sting in Florida ended with 277 arrests of individuals accused of sex trafficking, including doctors, pharmacists and police officers.

Sex trafficking victims in Hawaii described “cops asking for sexual favors to more coercive situations like I’ll let you go if you do X, Y, or Z for me.”

One study found that “over 14 percent of sex workers said that they had been threatened with arrest unless they had sex with a police officer.” In many states, it’s actually legal for police to have sex with prostitutes during the course of sting operations.

Whistleblower Reveals Fraud in Pfizer COVID Vaccine Trials as 5 to 11-Year-Olds Begin to be Injected

Vaccine Deaths and Injuries to Follow

A sample of the stories we have covered where children and young adults died or were permanently injured following a COVID-19 shot.

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

The criminal CDC rubber stamped their approval to start injecting American children between the ages of 5 and 11 with the deadly Pfizer COVID-19 shot yesterday.

As we have pointed out numerous times here at Health Impact News, children this young have a near ZERO statistical chance of dying from COVID-19.

Here are the current number of COVID-19 deaths for this age group for the past two years.

There is plenty of evidence that the FDA and CDC already know that the Pfizer shot is going to injure many children between the ages of 5 and 11.

The doses are not as strong as the ones given to those above the age of 12, but there was one ingredient that was changed in the shots for this age group. The Exposé has reported that the ingredient that was added for this age group is known for stabilizing heart attacks.

A document prepared for the FDA Advisory Committee meeting, in which members voted seventeen to zero in favour of giving emergency use authorisation for the administration of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to children aged 5 to 11, confirms that Pfizer have modified the formulation of their injection for children to include an ingredient that reduces the acidity of blood and is used to stabilise people who have suffered a heart attack. (Full story.)

Blood clots and heart disease are side effects that have already been observed in those who take the COVID-19 shots, especially effecting young boys.

In addition to this change in formulation for the Pfizer shots for younger children, Andrew White from the National File has reported that the FDA just recently approved the “first oral blood thinning medication for children.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved the “first oral blood thinning medication for children” a few months ahead of their COVID-19 vaccine rollout for children ages 5-11.

In late June 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a drug called Pradaxa; oral pellets to treat children 3 months to less than 12 years of age with venous thromboembolism, a condition that involves blood clots forming in the veins. Pradaxa is the “first FDA-approved blood thinning medication that children can take by mouth,” reads the FDA News Release.

“With today’s approval of Pradaxa, pediatric patients have another therapeutic option to treat and prevent potentially deadly blood clots,” said Ann Farrell, M.D., director of the Division of Non-Malignant Hematology for the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

A few months later, the FDA authorized children ages 5-11 to be injected with the Pfizer COVID-19 shot. (Full story.)

So they know what is in the future for this age group, and they are preparing for it.

Are you?

Pfizer is the largest criminal organization in the world, as we have reported numerous times over the years here at Health Impact News. They have settled some of the largest criminal cases for fraud with the DOJ in the history of the United States.

And now just as pharmacies around the U.S. begin to start injecting young children with the criminal Pfizer shot, a whistleblower has come forward and published a report in the BMJ stating that Pfizer did not conduct proper safety trials before the COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

BMJ Investigation

Excerpts:

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports.

In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open letter to the billions of people around the world who were investing their hopes in a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine to end the pandemic. “As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science,” Bourla wrote, explaining to the public when they could expect a Pfizer vaccine to be authorised in the United States.

But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety.

A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.

After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.

Poor laboratory management

On its website Ventavia calls itself the largest privately owned clinical research company in Texas and lists many awards it has won for its contract work.

But Jackson has told The BMJ that, during the two weeks she was employed at Ventavia in September 2020, she repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues.

Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management.

Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone.

One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box. Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants. Ventavia executives later questioned Jackson for taking the photos.

Early and inadvertent unblinding may have occurred on a far wider scale. According to the trial’s design, unblinded staff were responsible for preparing and administering the study drug (Pfizer’s vaccine or a placebo).

This was to be done to preserve the blinding of trial participants and all other site staff, including the principal investigator. However, at Ventavia, Jackson told The BMJ that drug assignment confirmation printouts were being left in participants’ charts, accessible to blinded personnel.

As a corrective action taken in September, two months into trial recruitment and with around 1000 participants already enrolled, quality assurance checklists were updated with instructions for staff to remove drug assignments from charts.

In a recording of a meeting in late September2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” a Ventavia executive says. “We know that it’s significant.”

Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organisation with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: “The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.”

ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which “Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.”

%d bloggers like this: