University nabs $42 million for ‘pandemic preparedness’ 2 weeks after firing scientist for questioning COVID shots for kids
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | May 8, 2024
A Canadian university has fired Patrick Provost, Ph.D., a professor and scientist experienced in the field of RNA and lipid nanoparticles, reigniting the debate around academic freedom and the suppression of scientific discourse.
Laval University, a public research university in Quebec City, suspended Provost multiple times for publicly questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the necessity of vaccinating children.
On March 28, the university fired Provost, who had tenure in the Department of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Immunology at the university’s Medical School.
The firing, which comes as his previous suspensions are still being arbitrated — and despite a Quebec law protecting academic freedom — first made headlines in Quebec’s Le Devoir on April 26, a day after Libre Média published portions of Provost’s letter to colleagues.
“Are we witnessing the re-engineering of society, where we will no longer be able to freely express or debate … where professors will censor themselves, rather than intervene … in order to preserve their privileges?” Provost wrote.
Laval’s controversial decision follows Harvard University’s example in March, when it fired Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, ostensibly for non-compliance with the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
‘I could not remain silent’
Over his 35-year career in academic research, Provost authored nearly 100 papers, was cited in over 16,000 research articles and received three “Discovery of the Year” awards in recognition of his research.
He was a leading expert in the field of RNA for the past 20 years and in the field of lipid nanoparticles for the past 10 years.
His extensive knowledge of these key components of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compelled him to question the possible dangers associated with the novel treatments when the Canadian government rolled them out in 2021.
“Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new ‘vaccines,’ I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children,” Provost wrote in his letter.
He said he felt compelled to share his concerns with the public, colleagues and government officials, to promote transparency and informed decision-making.
Despite his attempts to engage in dialogue and debate, Provost received no response other than the disciplinary actions taken by Laval University.
He was suspended without pay on four separate occasions. The first suspension, of eight weeks, was imposed on June 13, 2022, following a complaint from a professor, and the second, of four months, was imposed on Jan. 23, 2023, after a complaint from a citizen.
A sixth complaint was dropped on Feb. 14, 2023, after more than 275 colleagues wrote to the university denouncing its treatment of Provost as “abusive.”
Laval maintains his actions were not related to academic freedom but instead infringed on the university’s policymaking authority, Provost told The Defender.
In his letter, Provost expressed his disappointment in the lack of open discussion on the COVID-19 vaccine issue, asking, “Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate?”
Academic freedom ‘the last line of defence’ for democracy
Provost’s dismissal sparked concerns about the enforcement of Quebec’s law — passed in June 2022 — protecting academic freedom, The Epoch Times reported.
“University professors have the right to criticize their own institutions — even the government,” Provost told The Defender, who said his case should never have gone before an arbitrator.
The parliamentary minister declined to intervene, however, and — wanting to avoid the accusation of intervening in the legal process — claimed the arbitration process must proceed, according to Provost.
Critics argue that the law was not effectively enforced, leading to the suppression of dissenting opinions and the punishment of researchers who challenge dominant narratives.
The Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université (FQPPU), told The Epoch Times that Provost’s dismissal was an “unacceptable attack against academic freedom.”
FQPPU President Madeleine Pastinelli said, “If the theses defended by a professor are upsetting or erroneous, it’s the duty of other specialists in the field to criticize or contradict them on a scientific level and certainly not for managers to establish the limit between what is valuable or not.”
“It’s not normal for professors to fear retaliation when they speak publicly against government directives,” said Quebec Conservative Party Leader Éric Duhaime. “In democracy, universities must remain independent from political interests.”
In a letter of support for Provost, nine Canadian academics warned, “If we give place to censorship in the university, we give place to censorship virtually everywhere else.” They called academic freedom — and particularly tenure — “the last line of defence” for democracy.
Provost agreed, telling The Defender, “If the freedom of speech of professors disappears, democracy will disappear too, quite soon after.”
Canada is lost. Democracy only exists with robust academic freedom
1/ Great to see that BOTH Prof @provost_patrick‘s union & the Quebec Federation of University Professors (QFUP) supporting/defending him against what they call is an “unacceptable attack against academic freedom” https://t.co/p76ZoXhOEe
— Kulvinder Kaur MD (@dockaurG) May 2, 2024
Laval got $42 million for pandemic preparedness two weeks after firing
Provost’s dismissal also raised concerns about the influence of financial interests and political pressure on academic institutions.
Douglas Farrow, Ph.D., professor of theology and ethics at McGill University in Montreal and one of the authors of the recent letter in support of Provost, wrote on his Substack that the suppression of academic freedom often aligns with the interests of powerful entities, such as pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that provide significant funding to universities.
Farrow highlighted funding recently received by Laval University: “[$]42 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation to set up a centre to help prepare for future ‘pandemics.’”
“That’s a lot of money,” Provost told The Defender. “I’m wondering if my dismissal is linked to this announcement, which came about two weeks after I’d been fired.”
“Those vested interests don’t give a damn about science as such,” Farrow wrote. “It is ‘The Science’ they care about, because that is the kind of science you can be told by narrative-spinners to follow.”
Hopes for a favorable ruling
Provost and the Union of Laval University Professors have filed around 20 formal grievances challenging his suspensions and dismissal.
Provost said he hoped a favorable ruling from the arbitrator on the initial suspension would function “like falling dominoes,” setting a precedent for lifting the subsequent suspensions and ultimately paving the way for his reinstatement.
However, the arbitration process is expected to be lengthy, with a decision on the first suspension not anticipated until January 2025, more than three years after the alleged offenses.
If arbitration fails, Provost said he may pursue other options but lamented that “the legal system is really very corrupted by the government” in Canada.
The long battle has taken a toll on Provost’s energy and finances, which are now exacerbated by the loss of his position entirely. He has four children who are still financially dependent, with two still at home.
His two college-aged children have to “work more and borrow money from the bank,” he said, but noted that his family has been “very, very supportive.”
“Father, don’t worry about us,” his children told him. “You have to win this fight and we stand behind you.”
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
UK has flown 200 spy missions over Gaza, complicit in Israeli war crimes: Report
Press TV – May 10, 2024
A report has revealed that the UK military has flown 200 spy missions over Gaza in support of Israel, adding that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could investigate British officials over complicity in war crimes.
“The Royal Air Force (RAF) has flown 200 surveillance flights over Gaza since December, it can be revealed,” Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organization, said in a report on Wednesday.
Noting that the flights have taken off from the UK’s sprawling air base on Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, and have been in the air for about six hours, the organization said the RAF has likely “gathered around 1,000 hours” of footage over Gaza.
One of the flights was in the air on April 1 when Israel killed seven aid workers working for the World Central Kitchen, including three Britons, in airstrike on central Gaza, the report said.
On that day, “a UK spy plane departed Akrotiri at 5 pm local time and arrived back at the base at 10:49 pm. The Israeli airstrikes are believed to have taken place soon after 10.30 pm.”
The new information comes as the International Criminal Court (ICC) is considering issuing arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers in the wake of their months-long genocidal war against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.
“British officials could also face prosecution for complicity in war crimes, including defense secretary Grant Shapps,” Declassified said.
The UK Ministry of Defense announced on December 2 that it would begin spy flights over Gaza to locate captives held by the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas in Gaza.
“But the extraordinary number of flights, and the fact that they started nearly two months after the hostages were taken, raises suspicions that the UK is not collecting intelligence solely for this purpose.”
The organization noted that Shadow R1, a UK spy plane, also landed in Israel on February 13 before flying back to the UK base in Cyprus, saying “The purpose of the visit is unclear.”
“Israeli forces are also on the ground in Gaza, and notoriously have wide-ranging surveillance capabilities in the territory. It is unclear what Britain’s R1s can add to the hostage rescue mission.
Israel launched the devastating war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the Israeli regime’s decades-long campaign of bloodletting and devastation against Palestinians.
Since the start of the offensive, the Israeli attacks have killed at least 34,904 Palestinians and injured 78,514 others, as an estimated 10,000 Palestinians are believed to be buried under the rubble of buildings flattened by the regime’s bombs.
The Myth of Online Radicalisation
By Iain Davis | The Disillusioned Blogger | May 10, 2021
In 2021, following the tragic murder of David Amess MP, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali, the man subsequently convicted of murdering Mr Amess, was quite possibly radicalised online:
Social media users could face a ban on anonymous accounts, as home secretary Priti Patel steps up action to tackle radicalisation in the wake of the murder of MP David Amess. [. . .] Police questioning Ali Harbi Ali on suspicion of terrorism offences are understood to be investigating the possibility that the 25-year-old [. . .] was radicalised by material found on the internet and social media networks during lockdown.
The police had already stated that the crime was being investigated as a terrorist incident. They reported a potential motive of Islamist extremism.
Ali Harbi Ali had been known to the UK government’s Prevent counter-radicalisation program for seven years, prior to murdering Mr Amess. In 2014 Ali Harbi Ali was referred to the Channel counter-terrorism programme, a wing of Prevent reserved for the most radical youths. A referral to Channel can only have come from the UK Police. The official guidance for a Channel referral states:
The progression of referrals is monitored at the Home Office for a period, with a view to offering further support if needed. An audit of non-adopted referrals is undertaken where these did not progress to police management. The Home Office works with Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters to share any concerns and agree necessary steps for improvement in partnership with the local authority and police.
It is likely, therefore, that Ali Harbi Abedi was known to the UK government, counter-terrorism police and the intelligence agencies. Yet we are told, having been flagged as among the most concerning of all Prevent subjects, for some seemingly inexplicable reason, Ali Harbi Ali was not known to the intelligence agencies. To date, there has been no explanation for this, frankly, implausible claim.
Following his conviction, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali was an example of “textbook radicalisation.” This was a quite extraordinary claim because there is no such thing as “textbook radicalisation.”
Ali Harbi Ali said that he had watched ISIS propaganda videos online. This was also highlighted at his trial. Consequently, the BBC reported:
[. . .] for a potentially bored teenager living a humdrum life in suburban London – the [Syrian] war not only appeared like an exciting video game on social media, it came packaged with an appealing message that there was a role for everyone else. [. . .] Harbi Ali told himself he could [. . .] join the ranks of home-grown attackers – on the basis of an instruction [online videos] from an IS propagandist who played a major role in the spread of terrorism attacks in western Europe.
The story we are supposed to believe about Ali Harbi Ali’s alleged path toward radicalisation is that he became a terrorist and a murderer because he watched YouTube videos and engaged in online groups that support terrorism. This is complete nonsense.
What is the Radicalisation Process?
In 2016, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report to inform potential UN strategies to counter extremism and terrorism. Emmerson reported there was neither an agreed-upon definition of “extremism” nor any single cogent explanation of the “radicalisation” process:
[M]any programmes directed at radicalisation [are] based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way. [. . .] There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.
This was followed, in 2017, with the publication of “Countering Domestic Extremism” by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report stated that domestic “violence and violent extremist ideologies” were eventually adopted by a small minority of people as the result of a complex and poorly understood “radicalisation” process.
According to the NAS, there were numerous contributory factors to an individual’s apparent radicalisation, including sociopolitical and economic factors, personality traits, psychological influences, traumatic life experiences and so on. Precisely how these elements combined, and why some people were radicalised, while the majority who experienced the same weren’t, remained unknown:
No single shared motivator for violent extremism has been found, but the sum of several could provide a strong foundation for understanding
In July 2018, researcher team from from Deakin University in Australia largely corroborated Emmerson’s and NAS’ findings. Adding some further detail and research, their peer-reviewed article, “The 3 P’s of Radicalisation,” was based upon an meta-analysis of all the available academic literature on the radicalisation. They identified three broad drivers that could potentially lead someone toward violent extremism. They called these Push, Pull, and Personal factors.
Push factors are created by the individuals perception of their social or political environment. Awareness of things likes state repression, structural deprivation, poverty, and injustice can lead to resentment and anger. Pull factors are the elements of extremism that appeal to the individual. This might include an ideological commitment, a group identity and sense of belonging, finding a purpose, promises of justice, eternal glory, etc. Personal factors are the aspects of an individual’s personality that may predispose them to being more vulnerable to Push or Pull influences. For example, mental health problems or illness, individual characteristics, their reaction to life experiences and more.
Currently, the UN cites it’s own report—Journey To Extremism in Africa—as “the most extensive study yet on what drives people to violent extremism.” Building on the work we’ve just discussed, the report concluded that radicalisation is the product of numerous factors that combine to lead an individual down a path to extremism and possible violence.
The myriad of contributory factors to the radicalisation process acording to the UN’s “best study.”
The UN stated:
We know the drivers and enablers of violent extremism are multiple, complex and context specific, while having religious, ideological, political, economic and historical dimensions. They defy easy analysis, and understanding of the phenomenon remains incomplete.
The BBC report of “textbook radicalisation” was total rubbish. Everything we know about the radicalisation process reveals a convoluted interplay between social, economic, political, cultural and personal factors. These factors, which “defy easy analysis,” may combine to lead someone toward violent extremism and potentially terrorism. In the overwhelming majority of cases they do not.
It is extremely difficult to predict which individual’s may be radicalised. Millions of people experience all of the Push, Pull and Personal contributory factors and only a minuscule minority turn to extremism and violence.
We can say that watching videos and hanging around in online chat groups may be part of the radicalisation process but, absent all the other contributory elements, in no way is it reasonable to claim that anyone becomes a terrorist simply because they are “radicalised online.” The suggestion is absurd.
This absurdity was emphasised by the UN in its June 2023 publication of its report “Prevention of Violent Extremism.” The UN reported:
[. . .] deaths from terrorist activity have fallen considerably worldwide in recent years.
During the same period global internet use had increased by 45%, from 3.7 billion people in 2018 to 5.4 billion in 2023. Quite clearly, if there is a correlation between internet use and terrorism—doubtful—it’s an inverse one.
Adopting the precautionary principle we should perhaps be encouraging more people to have more access to a wider range of online information sources. There is a remote, but possible chance that this assists, in some unknown way, the reduction of violent extremism and deters the tiny minority from turning toward terrorism.
Marianna Spring
Exploiting the Online Radicalisation Myth
State propagandists, like the BBC’s Marianna Spring, have been spreading disinformation about online radicalisation for some time. They have been doing this to deceive the public into thinking that government legislation, such as the Online Safety Act (OSA), will tackle the mythical problem of online radicalisation.
In a January 2024 article she titled “Young Britons exposed to online radicalisation following Hamas attack,” Marianna Spring wrote:
It is a spike in hate that leaves young Britons increasingly exposed to radicalisation by algorithm. [. . .] Algorithms are recommendation systems that promote new content to a user based on posts they engage with. That means they can drive some people to more extreme ideas.
Building on her absurd Lord Haw-Haw level tripe, in reference to the work of the UK Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) Spring added:
The focus is on terrorism-related content that could lead to violence offline or risk radicalising other people into terror ideologies on social media.
Building on this abject nonsense Spring continued:
So what about all of the hate that sits in the middle? It’s not extreme enough to be illegal, but it still poisons the public discourse and risks pushing some people further towards extremes. [. . .] Responsibility for dealing with hateful posts – as of now – lies with the social media companies. It also lies, to some extent, with policy makers looking to regulate the sites, and users themselves. New legislation like the Online Safety Act does force the social media companies to take responsibility for illegal content, too.
This blurring of definitions from “terrorist” to “hate” to “hateful posts” to “extremes” was a meaningless slurry of specious drivel designed to convince the public that terrorists become terrorists because they watch YouTube videos or are influenced by the “hurty words” they read and share on social media. None of which was true.
Spring’s evident purpose was to lend some credibility to the State’s legislative push to silence all dissent online and censor legitimate public opinion. Spring spun the idea, that online radicalisation exists, to encourage people to give away their essential democratic rights in order to stay safe.
This moronic argument convinced the clueless puppeticians—we keep electing to Parliament by mistake—to pass the Online Safety Act into law in October 2023. They were told that it would protect children and adults from “harm”:
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to [. . .] terrorism.
Imagining this is what the Online Safety Act was supposed to protect adults from, the OSA received its Royal assent. Now that we have it on the statute books all the anti-democratic oppression it contains has been let loose.
The UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) creates the offence of “sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm.” Quite what “non-trivial harm” is supposed to mean isn’t entirely clear. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) certainly doesn’t understand it:
Section 179(1) OSA 2023 creates a summary offence of sending false communications. The offence is committed if [. . .], at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience. [. . .] Non-trivial psychological or physical harm is not defined [. . .]. Prosecutors should be clear when making a charging decision about what the evidence is concerning the suspect’s intention and how what was intended was not “trivial”, and why. Note that there is no requirement that such harm should in fact be caused, only that it be intended.
Its seems the legal profession can’t quite grasp the horrific implications of the new punishable offence the UK State has created. Perhaps because they still imagine they serve a democracy. There’s no need for any confusion. The UK State has been quite clear about the nature of its dictatorship:
These new criminal offences will protect people from a wide range of abuse and harm online, including [. . .] sending fake news that aims to cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm.
“Fake news” is whatever the State, the Establishment and their “epistemic authorities” say it is. what constitutes “non-trivial harm” is also an entirely subjective judgement for the State. The Online Safety regulator, Ofcom, will decree the truth and the State will punish those who dare to contradict its official proclamations based upon whatever the Secretary of State tells Ofcom to outlaw.
If you think this sounds like “thought crime,” you are right. That is precisely what it is.
The idea that the OSA has something to do with protecting children and deterring people from online radicalisation was a sales pitch. Propagandists like the BBC’s Marianna Spring were dispatched to make the ridiculous arguments to deceive the public into believing their own speech needs to be regulated by the State.
The State is Completely Disinterested In Terrorist Content Online
Inciting violence, crime or promoting terrorism, sharing child porn and the online paedophile grooming of children has been illegal in the UK for many years. The Online Safety Act adds absolutely nothing to existing laws. The problem has never been insufficient law it has been insufficient enforcement.
In addition, it couldn’t be more obvious that the UK State and its propagandists are not in the least bit interested in tackling alleged “online radicalisation.” It is revealed in Marianna Spring’s article (referenced above) she reportedly got her wacky ideas about online radicalisation from CTIRU team members.
The CTIRU was set up in 2010 to remove “unlawful terrorist material” from the Internet. It makes formal requests to social media and hosting companies to take down material deemed to be terrorist related. If online radicalisation were a thing, which it isn’t, the CTIRU has been tasked for 14 years with stopping it. It doesn’t appear to have done anything at all.
The group Jabhat Fateh al Sham (JFS) was formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (alias al-Qaeda in Syria, or al-Qaeda in the Levant). It subsequently merged with Ansar al-Din Front, Jaysh al-Sunna, Liwa al-Haqq, and the Nour al–Din al-Zenki Movement to form Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), or ‘Levant Liberation Front’.
HTS’ objective is to create an Islamic state in the Levant. According to the UK Government’s listing of proscribed terrorist groups:
The government laid Orders, in July 2013, December 2016 and May 2017, which provided that the “al-Nusrah Front (ANF)”, “Jabhat al-Nusrah li-ahl al Sham”, “Jabhat Fatah al-Sham” and “Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the name Al Qa’ida.
HTS, then, is officially defined as Al-Qa’ida. It is the same group supposedly responsible for 9/11.
In 2016, six years after the CTIRU was formed, BBC Newsnight interviewed Al-Qa’ida’s Director of Foreign Media Relations, Mostafa Mahamed, about the ambitions of Al-Qa’ida. The BBC gave him ample airtime to explain how Al-Qa’ida was leading the fight against the elected Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The BBC claimed that JFS—now HTS—had formerly split from Al-Qa’ida. Probably attempting to justify its promotion of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The UK Government does not share the BBC appraisal but its Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit doesn’t appear to be overly fussed.
The BBC HTS promo video is still available to watch on YouTube. Alternatively, you could watch a JFS promotional video, or perhaps spend less than a minute searching YouTube to find the slew of videos it provides promoting proscribed Islamist terrorist groups.
You can still watch Channel 4’s in-depth 2016 report extolling the heroics of the Nour al-Din al-Zenki terrorists. This is the group that publicly beheaded a twelve-year-old boy. In fact, Channel 4 promoted those directly responsible for the despicable crime. Channel 4 said the child murderers had won a “famous victory”.
When it was pointed out that these people decapitate children, the BBC leapt to their defence, pointing out that the child was probably a combatant. The BBC didn’t ask its terrorist interviewee, Mostafa Mahamed, whether he was against murdering children in principle.
Such videos have been available online for years and have been shared liberally by mainstream media outlets such as Al-Jazeera, Channel 4, the BBC, AP, France24 and many others. This all seems rather odd, because in 2018, then CTIRU Commander Clarke Jarrett said:
It’s vital that if the public see something online they think could be terrorist-related, that they ACT and flag it up to us. Our Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) has specialist officers who not only take action to get content removed, but also increasingly, are in a position to look at those behind online content — which is leading to more and more investigations.
What does CTIRU mean by “terrorist-related” if not promotional videos made by terrorist organisations? How much investigation is needed to “take down” BBC interviews with Al-Qa’ida spokesmen, and to prosecute those who made and broadcast it?
Why aren’t the hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorist promos currently available via Google services deemed unlawful? Are only some terrorist groups unlawful while others are fine? Why are some terrorists promoted and others not?
The truth is the whole thing is a monumental sham. Not only is online radicalisation a myth the State couldn’t care less about terrorist promotional material. The online radicalisation myth has been punted by propagandists for one reason only. To convince you to submit to online censorship.
Is Your Car Spying on You?
By Andrew P. Napolitano | May 9, 2024
I predict future happiness for Americans,
if they can prevent the government from
wasting the labors of the people under
the pretense of taking care of them.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Last week, Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts revealed that automobiles sold in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system accumulate the travel data of the vehicle on computer chips located in the vehicle and the vehicle manufacturers have remote access to the computer chips. They revealed this is a letter to the Federal Trade Commission that, at this writing, has gone unanswered.
The senators complained that the computer chips in late-model vehicles retain the records of the location and driving habits utilized by the operator of each vehicle.
One probably expects some of this as most GPS systems ask if you are looking for directions to a location to which you have traveled in the past. That very request on your dashboard should trigger the observation that the vehicle’s computer chip has stored the requests you have input to the GPS.
But it doesn’t stop with a record of your GPS requests. What the two senators revealed was truly startling. The computer chips record every movement and speed of the vehicle; and some vehicles — those equipped with certain sensors and exterior cameras — also record the surroundings of the location of the vehicle.
Both senators complained that Americans largely do not know that the manufacturer of the vehicle they drive has remote access to the computer chips in the vehicle, and most Americans are largely unaware that the vehicle manufacturers make this data available to the government without a search warrant.
Is this constitutional? In a word: NO.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the quintessential American right — the natural human right — to be left alone. Justice Louis Brandeis called it the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized persons.
It presumes that you can think as you wish and say what you think and read what you want and publish what you say, that you can exclude whomever you wish — including the government — from your property and from your thoughts; that you can move around from place to place; and do all this without a government permission slip, fear of government reprisal or the government’s prying eyes.
This natural right is expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause of crime before the government can invade your property or spy on you, directly or indirectly. When the government has access to the data in your personal vehicle, it is simultaneously invading your property and spying on you.
The warrant requirement serves three purposes.
The first is to force the government to stay in the lane of crime solving, rather than crime predicting.
The colonists loathed when the British entered their homes with general warrants ostensibly looking to see if the colonists had purchased government stamps as the Stamp Act required. The true goal of these forced entries was to search for revolutionary materials in order to help the government predict who might be planning the revolution that came in 1776.
The second purpose of the warrant requirement is to prevent fishing expeditions using general warrants. General warrants permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds. Thus, the Fourth Amendment also requires that the warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.
The third and most fundamental purpose of the warrant requirement is to reduce to writing the right to privacy. All persons naturally yearn for privacy. The Framers knew this and believed they had guaranteed it in the Fourth Amendment. They were wrong.
Some have argued that the culprits with these computer chips are the vehicle manufacturers. They are wrong. The culprit is the government.
The federal Department of Transportation — found nowhere in the Constitution — mandates the specs for the computer chips installed in vehicles sold in the United States. And the recent amendment to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires all persons and entities that manufacture or install facilities that transmit data over fiber-optic cables in the U.S. to make those facilities available to the federal government’s spies.
That mandate includes the CIA, even though its charter forbids it to spy domestically or engage in domestic law enforcement; the FBI, even though the federal prosecutors for whom FBI agents work cannot use evidence in federal prosecutions obtained via surveillance without a search warrant; and the National Security Administration, the federal government’s 60,000 dedicated domestic spies, whose management falsely claims it obtains warrants from the FISA court for all its spying.
What have we here?
What we have is the slow silent erosion of personal liberty perpetrated by a Congress afraid of the intelligence community it created in 1947 and which it is supposed to regulate, enabled by every president since Ronald Reagan who has looked the other way when the spies plied their foul crafts, and carried out by nameless faceless bureaucrats with large and awful eyes whose appetites for acquiring private data about ordinary Americans as to whom there is no suspicion or probable cause of criminal behavior is utterly and literally insatiable.
Even former President Donald Trump, who was infamously the subject of unlawful and unconstitutional spying when he was a private citizen and while in the White House, has fallen for all this.
What we have here is only lip service by our elected representatives to the words, their meanings and the underlying values of the Constitution. Efforts to stop this in the House and the Senate last month fell short by a single vote in each house. And that was before the Wyden/Markey revelations about your car spying on you!
Do you know anyone who has consented to this? Who will protect us from lawless government? Don’t we know by now that sacrificing liberty for safety leads to neither?
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
UNGA backs membership for Palestine
RT | May 10, 2024
The UN General Assembly passed a resolution accepting Palestine as the 194th member of the world body on Friday. The US has previously vetoed Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, however.
Palestine has been a non-voting observer in the global body since 2012. The new resolution would grant it “new rights and privileges,” as well as full membership if approved by the Security Council. It was adopted with 143 votes in favor, nine against, and 25 abstentions.
US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood said his government was opposed to the resolution, indicating that Washington would veto Palestinian membership at the council again – as it did last month.
Friday’s resolution included an expression of “deep regret and concern” by the General Assembly that the US had vetoed the admission of Palestine on April 18, and urged the council to “reconsider the matter favorably” in line with the UN Charter and decisions by the International Court of Justice.
The General Assembly voiced its “unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.”
Though Israel has nominally accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood in the abstract, the government in West Jerusalem has rejected its implementation in practice. During last month’s Security Council debate, Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan described the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, as “a terror-supporting entity that does not deserve any status in the UN.”
Israel has also vowed to completely destroy Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, after last year’s October 7 attacks.
After exercising his veto last month, Ambassador Wood said that the US action “does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood, but instead is an acknowledgement that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties,” adding that Palestine can’t join the UN so long as Hamas is in control of Gaza.
Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has accused the US of holding the Security Council “hostage” over events in the Middle East. He also argued that Palestinian statehood and UN membership would “equalize the starting negotiating positions of the parties.”
An estimated 1,200 Israelis died in the October 7 attacks by Hamas. More than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent Israeli offensive, which is presently targeting the city of Rafah in the south of Gaza. Israel has pressed the attack despite the reservations of the US, made known at official levels.
Lukashenko on Polish judge defector: ‘A completely normal person, patriotic Pole, Putin is interested in his story’
BY GRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK | REMIX NEWS | MAY 10, 2024
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko announced that he has instructed the police to protect Tomasz Szmydt, a former Polish judge who has fled Poland and asked for political asylum in Belarus.
Lukashenko addressed the issue of the Polish citizen seeking asylum after Thursday’s Victory Day celebrations, where he mentioned that the defection of officials from Poland is a “trend.”
He refuted claims that Belarus and Russia recruit such individuals, labeling these allegations as “complete nonsense.” According to Lukashenko, he only saw Tomasz Szmydt at a press conference and found him to be “a completely normal person.”
The Belarusian leader learned about Szmydt’s situation the day before from the KGB and initially ordered a background check on him. Describing the judge’s escape as a blow to Polish authority, Lukashenko commented: “And then they start: traitor, this and that. He is not a traitor, but he really looks at everything, compares Poland with Belarus and draws conclusions.”
Lukashenko also revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken an interest in Szmydt’s story, indicating the significance of the matter. He dismissed accusations of recruitment by Belarus as “complete stupidity,” challenging Warsaw to present facts to support their claims.
In his interview with the state news agency BełTa, Lukashenko further stated that he had ordered the judicial authorities to ensure Szmydt’s protection, expressing concern for his safety. “So these scoundrels don’t kill the man, although he says: ‘I know what I am heading towards.’ A brave man. A normal man, as far as I am informed now.”
Tomasz Szmydt was until recently a judge at the Second Department of the Administrative Court in Warsaw and has held various positions within the Polish judiciary. On Monday, during a press conference in Minsk, he announced his request for political asylum in Belarus, citing it as a protest against Poland’s policies towards Belarus and Russia.
On Thursday, the president of the Supreme Administrative Court accepted Szmydt’s declaration of immediate resignation from his judicial position, meaning he is no longer a judge.
Seminary trustees adopt divestment from profiteers of Israeli genocide
Al Mayadeen | May 10, 2024
The Union Theological Seminary announced, on Thursday, that its board of trustees had approved a policy endorsing the institution’s divestment from “companies substantially and intractably benefiting from the war in Palestine.”
The decision to adopt the divestment plan was made by the board’s investment committee, which had been working on its formulation since November 2023, as per the announcement.
As a partner of Columbia University, UTS is among the first institutions in the United States to publicly commit to divesting its endowment from companies associated with the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
While housing Columbia’s theology faculty, UTS maintains a separate endowment valued at approximately $110 million, according to a statement provided to The Spectator by a UTS spokesperson.
The announcement detailed concrete actions the institution will undertake to adjust its investment portfolios, such as amending the section on “responsible investing” in the investment policy statement to explicitly address the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
“Our investment policies will continue to adapt, guided by our values, to strengthen the resolve that undergirds our decision today,” the statement adds. “We do not take this step lightly, and we do so with all humility, recognizing that our work on the global stage is far from finished. Although our investments in the war in Palestine are small because our previous, strong anti-armament screens are robust, we hope that our action today will bring needed pressure to bear to stop the killing and find a peaceful future for all.”
The decision is in line with UTS’ tradition of embracing “socially responsible investment” practices. UTS’ existing investment policy already prohibits investments in armaments, weapons, defense manufacturers, and companies involved in human rights abuses, according to the announcement. Furthermore, in 2014, UTS made history as the first higher education institution to divest from fossil fuels.
UTS’ statement also emphasizes the institution’s “early divestment from the dehumanizing system of apartheid in South Africa” and its screening procedure to ward “against investing in for-profit prisons.”
In addition to divesting, UTS is “exploring investments that proactively support humanitarian and entrepreneurial companies doing positive work in the region,” the statement stressed.
The announcement further highlighted that in addition to creating additional screens to “determine a list” of companies profiting from the Israeli war, UTS will be “identifying resources to monitor changes to company activity over time.”
The big picture
Pro-Palestine protests have swept university campuses across the United States, with calls for the alienation from “Israel” or Israeli-affiliated institutions.
As student protests and movements increasingly gained momentum, hundreds of arrests were made as police tried to thwart their efforts, and the government mobilized to introduce legislation that would ultimately punish those participating.
Israeli lobbyists and the Israeli government are relentlessly pressuring US government officials to take more action against such movements in an effort to silence the criticism targeted toward “Israel” and demands to divest from the occupation.
Despite their efforts, the actions of lobbies and governments are proving futile as universities across the United States are beginning to divest from companies profiting from the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The movement reflects a growing trend among academic institutions to align their investment strategies with ethical considerations, particularly regarding human rights violations. By divesting from such companies, universities are taking a stand against perceived injustices and contributing to pressure for change in the ongoing Palestinian struggle.
UN: Over 100,000 Palestinians displaced from Rafah as Israel intensifies strikes
Press TV – May 10, 2024
The United Nations says more than 100,000 Palestinians have been forced to leave Rafah, amid intensified Israeli strikes on the southern city in Gaza.
“More than 100,000 people have fled Rafah,” Hamish Young, UNICEF’s senior emergency coordinator in the Gaza Strip, said at a briefing in Geneva via video-link from Rafah on Friday.
The UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) also estimated that “around 110,000 people have now fled Rafah looking for safety.”
The agency, however, stressed that “nowhere is safe in the Gaza Strip & living conditions are atrocious,” reiterating its call for ceasefire.
“The only hope is an immediate ceasefire,” the UN agency said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
The UNRWA noted that the forced displacement comes as “Israeli Forces bombardment intensifies in Rafah.”
The regime has vowed for weeks to launch a wholesale ground incursion against the city of Rafah, where nearly more than half of Gaza’s population of 2.4 have sought shelter from Israeli strikes elsewhere in Gaza.
The Israeli military has already gone ahead with waging limited ground attacks against the city and seized control of Gaza’s side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which is the main corridor for the transfer of aid into the besieged strip.
Israel launched the devastating war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the Israeli regime’s decades-long campaign of bloodletting and devastation against Palestinians.
Since the start of the offensive, the Tel Aviv regime has killed more than 34,900 Palestinians and injured more than 78,000 others.
Spanish universities plan to suspend cooperation with Israeli institutions
Press TV – May 10, 2024
Scores of Spanish universities plan to suspend cooperation with the Israeli universities that have not called for peace in the occupying regime’s ongoing genocidal war against the Gaza Strip.
The plan was announced in an open letter by the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, which oversees 50 public and 26 private universities, on Thursday.
The universities, the letter read, planned to suspend collaborations with Israeli universities that “have not expressed a firm commitment to peace and compliance with international humanitarian law.”
In addition, the universities pledged to “intensify cooperation with the Palestinian scientific and higher education system and expand our cooperation, volunteering, and care programs for the refugee population.”
The schools said they were showing solidarity with “the feelings of our campuses and the demand that is spreading from them.”
They were referring to ongoing pro-Palestinian encampments and rallies that have been going on across many universities throughout the European country in protest at the Israeli war on Gaza.
At least 34,904 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed so far during the war, which began following al-Aqsa Storm, a retaliatory operation by the coastal sliver’s resistance groups.
The letter also called for a permanent ceasefire in the war and transfer of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian territory, which is enduring a simultaneous Israeli siege.
Over the past weeks, student protests have gained momentum across western Europe, with the participants raging against the brutal Israeli military onslaught and pressing their schools to divest from the Israeli companies that contribute to the genocide.
The demonstrators have taken their cue from pro-Palestinian student protests across the United States, which have spread across numerous of American colleges.
More than 1,000 people have reportedly been arrested on US campuses since April 18, when a pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University in New York was forcefully removed by the police.
Here’s Every Ceasefire Deal and Prisoner Exchange Hamas Has Offered Israel Since October 7th
BreakThrough News | May 8, 2024
Featured Video
History lesson for Piers Morgan
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Can the WHO and the United Nations impose sanctions on your sovereign country for non-compliance?
The UN is a far bigger threat than the WHO, which, although deserving of attention, cannot consume our entire focus.
BY SHABNAM PALESA MOHAMED | JUNE 18, 2024
This updated analysis was written in 2023 (read in full here at CHD Africa)
Sanctions are a powerful instrument of political control and economic profit. One of the rare but critical topics relevant to the international campaign to #ExitTheWHO is whether the World Health Organisation and the United Nations can impose, influence or recommend specific sanctions. The sanctions could be implemented against countries that choose to not comply or cannot comply with International Health Regulations, the proposed new pandemic treaty, or other legislative attempts that curtail rights, freedom and sovereignty.
The accelerating and profitable globalist march towards unprecedented levels of ‘1984’ style totalitarianism – using censorship, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, and CBDC’s continues. It is plausible that the WHO and the UN will move to impose, influence or recommend sanctions against countries that do not want to or cannot comply with its centralised health agenda and undemocratic legislative attempts. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
rediscover911com on Trump names cause of Ukraine… rediscover911com on Droning Russia’s nuke radars i… rediscover911com on Can the WHO and the United Nat… peterjohnarnold on Droning Russia’s nuke radars i… peterjohnarnold on Feminist Accuses UK Police of… peterjohnarnold on UK Labour Party ditches candid… rediscover911com on Russia withdraws from MH17 res… Balthasar Gerards on Russia withdraws from MH17 res… Balthasar Gerards on Neocon Star Julie Smith is… peterjohnarnold on Jailed Iranian musician’… roberthstiver on Neocon Star Julie Smith is… aletho on Obama May Finally Succeed…
Aletho News- Nothing to worry about? South Korea sounds the alarm
- Hunter Biden’s Charge of Lying Under Oath
- Canada’s terrorist designation of IRGC ‘utter servility’ to Israel: Iran
- Trump names cause of Ukraine conflict
- Israeli pressure on Labour party, British politics ‘huge’, Corbyn says
- EU’s Mass Surveillance Faces Fierce Resistance
- Czech populists pull out of liberal Renew group in EU Parliament over disastrous Green Deal and migration
- Polls show east German state elections will be historic turning point, but the establishment has a plan to block the AfD
- Hungary ‘won’t ride NATO war train’ – Orban
- MI6 Coup in Macedonia Unravels
- If Americans Knew
- HRW: In Gaza, “the dead are the lucky ones” – Day 258
- UN finds at least 14 Israelis likely intentionally killed by own army on October 7
- ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism
- Fear, hunger and displacement follows Israel’s worsening abuse of Palestinians in Hebron
- Israel’s “Flour Massacres” are back; another damning UN report – Day 257
- Rafah Attack: Netanyahu’s Lies Expose The Truth About Israel
- Israel perpetrates atrocity upon atrocity against the people of Gaza – Day 256
- Veterans For Peace: U.S. Army Major Quits Over Israel [video]
- While Gaza suffers physical genocide, the West Bank faces economic genocide
- The Palestinians’ Ironclad, Inalienable Right To Resist
- International Solidarity Movement
- Palestinians Harassed during Eid Celebrations in Masafer Yatta
- Steadfastness and Colonisation in Palestine
- Three martyred and five wounded in Tulkarem
- Dispatches from Palestine
- The Right to Resist Genocide by Land and By Sea
- Women Support Center in Nablus empowers women and girls, resists gendered violence and the Occupation
- Palestinian Family at Um Darit Harassed and Isolated
- Occupation Forces Targeted Series of Strikes Kills 7 Aid Workers in Gaza
- Israeli army and police escalate repression of human rights volunteers following Knesset hearing.
- Illegal Israeli Settlers Continue Attacks on Shepherds in Masafer Yatta
- Richie Allen
- Today’s Show Is Cancelled – Back Tomorrow Thursday May 30th
- Call Richie Today Monday March 11th From 4.30pm
- Connect To The Richie Allen Show WhatsApp Today
- NHS Asks Patients To Choose From 12 Genders, 10 sexual Preferences & 159 Religions
- The Richie Allen Show Moves To A New Time Slot From Monday Nov 20th
- Starmer Will Sack Shadow Ministers Who Vote For Gaza Ceasefire
- AI Tool Can Predict Heart Attacks Years In Advance
- Nepal Bans TikTok To Preserve Social Harmony
- Bloke Appointed Boss Of Womb Health Charity
- WHO – “Gaza’s Biggest Hospital Becoming A Cemetery”
- No Tricks Zone
- Claims Of Revolutionary Batteries Turn Out To Be Unfounded Hype By “Uncritical Media”
- Reminder: Historical Natural Warming Rates Dwarf Modern Climate Change
- Climate Alarmists Fretting Over European Cup 2024, Summer Festival Emissions
- Central Italy Was 3-4°C Warmer Than Today About 10,000 to 12,000 Years Ago
- Germany May Sales Of Electric Cars Plummet 30.6% Compared To Year Earlier
- Fossil Fuels Remain The Future. VW To Invest 60 Billion Euros In Combustion Engines!
- New Study: Large Atmospheric Pressure Swings May Explain Past Hothouse-Icehouse Climates, CO2 Levels
- Summer Refuses To Appear Over Much Of Europe…Snow Disrupts Tour De Suisse
- New Study: East Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Thickening, Gaining Mass – Especially Since The 1980s
- Deputy Leader Of Germany’s Centre-Right Party: Country In A “Green Fairy Tale World”
Aletho News 