Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

The Cradle | September 3, 2026

Nearly half of US citizens believe the wars waged by Washington in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond after the 11 September 2001 attacks have been “worth it,” a YouGov poll published on 2 August shows.

The poll was commissioned ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, which the US government used as a pretext to launch the so-called “War on Terror” that led to the deaths of nearly 5 million people.

Respondents were asked if fighting “against the threat of terrorism through military operations abroad” and introducing “increased security and surveillance inside of the United States … have been worth the cost.”

Forty-eight percent responded yes, while another 27 percent said they weren’t sure. The remaining 25 percent said no.

Support for this view was strongest among Republicans, with 71 percent responding yes.

When asked whether some people in the US government knew about the 11 September attacks beforehand but let the attacks happen anyway, 39 percent of respondents agreed, and the same number disagreed.

Immediately after the attacks, US officials blamed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda was founded in the 1980s in Afghanistan. At the time, the CIA was arming and funding Islamic extremists known as “mujahideen” to fight the occupying Soviet Army.

The CIA later supported Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, and Syria, while claiming to be opposed to the group.

In 2024, the US helped install former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Ahmad al-Sharaa as president of Syria following the CIA’s 14-year covert war to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad.

When YouGov asked if Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks, 38 percent agreed, while 34 percent disagreed.

Pro-Israel officials in the administration of former US president George W. Bush began pushing for an invasion of Iraq immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

The US government and media launched a massive propaganda campaign to wrongly convince US citizens that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had collaborated with Al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks and that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the US homeland.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents to the poll said that the amount of surveillance by the US government had been affected “a lot” by the 9/11 attacks.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush signed the Patriot Act, which gave the US government sweeping powers to surveil US citizens, allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to track their phone calls and movements.

When YouGov asked if “Muslims in the United States have been treated better, about the same, or worse than people of other religions,” 52 percent of respondents said Muslims have been treated worse.

Among Democrats, 71 percent agreed with the statement, while 28 percent of Republicans agreed.

After 9/11, many US citizens became hostile to Muslims, viewing them as “terrorists.”

A 2023 report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University estimated that 4.5 million people have died as a consequence of the US wars since the 9/11 attacks.

The US military carried out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Of the 4.5 million deaths, roughly 900,000 were killed by direct violence. Roughly 3.6 million resulted from “indirect” deaths caused by the aftereffects of the wars.

September 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

By James Bovard | Mises Wire | August 31, 2026

The Trump administration’s crusade to crush campus criticism took another wallop on Friday in a California courtroom. Federal judge Noël Wise ruled that the Trump administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” brazenly violated the US Constitution.

The Stanford Daily—one of the best-known college student newspapers in the nation—sued the Trump administration for changing its “immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like.” It asserted that the Trump administration’s “actions have specifically impacted Stanford Daily by decreasing the quantity and diversity of opinion pieces The Stanford Daily is able to publish on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” Foreign students who had written on the issue requested that their previous articles be deleted, and other foreign students were no longer willing to comment on hot issues.

The Trump administration claims unlimited discretion to silence foreign students by deporting those whose opinions it disapproves of. Judge Wise wrote, “The language of the [First] Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people. . . . It is not the government’s to take.” This is a notion that conservatives instinctively understand when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. But many people fail to recognize the same right for freedom of speech. Conor Fitzpatrick—the chief supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which represented the student newspaper, declared, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff clarified the scope of the ruling:

This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out.

George Porteous—Editor in Chief of Stanford Daily—hailed the decision: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.” But it remains to be seen whether this latest judicial rebuff slows the Trump censorship juggernaut.

When former president Donald Trump was campaigning to get elected as president in 2024, he openly promised at a campaign event, “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.” This was a linchpin of the promise on Trump’s campaign website to “make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.”

Trump presumed that non-citizens have zero right to free speech and his appointees have enforced that policy with an iron fist. On March 25, 2025, masked ICE agents seized Rumeysa Ozturk—a Turkish graduate student—off the streets outside Boston. Ozturk was locked up for 45 days and her student visa covertly canceled because she co-authored an op-ed criticizing Tufts University for failing to divest from Israel in response to the genocide in Gaza. Secretary of State Marco Rubio vilified her as a “lunatic” and implied that the feds had ample evidence of her crimes and abuses. Rubio later justified targeting Ozturk because she met the standard of “people that are supportive of movements that run counter to the foreign policy of the United States.” (Ironically, a large majority of Americans now oppose Trump’s foreign policy regarding his war on Iran). A leak to the Washington Post revealed that the feds had nothing on her—except that op-ed. Federal Judge William Sessions ordered Ozturk released because her arrest “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” But that was the whole point.

Last September, in a case similar to the Stanford Daily case, federal judge William Young ruled that the Trump’s administration’s implementation of the Executive Orders (on foreign students),

. . . was targeted intentionally at specific viewpoints in order to chill speech. The evidence presented at trial included the Public Officials’ many public statements suggesting that they wished to staunch public protest related to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including the President’s campaign promise that he would put an end to the student protests on this issue by kicking out protestors.

A Trump Executive Order interpreted “support” for terrorists “to be centered on core First Amendment speech and expressive conduct, such as attending public protests, leading such protests, or even publishing op-eds.” Judge Young declared that he “saw virtually no evidence that anyone along the way [any Trump official] seriously questioned whether pure political speech in support of Palestine or against Israel could be construed as support for terrorism.” Instead, that was the self-evident truth driving the crackdown.

The Stanford Daily case vivified how far the Trump administration will go to snuff dissent. A New York Times headline captured the essence of the case: “Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized Israel.” If a foreign student engaged in violence at a protest, that would be sufficient to deport them regardless of their opinions. But the Trump administration cast a far wider net, relying heavily on a list of 5,000 foreign students provided by the Canary Mission, which, according to Wikipedia, is “an Israel-based anonymously-run doxing website established in 2014 that publishes the personal information of students, professors, and organizations that it describes as anti-Israel or antisemitic.”

Judge Wise’s decision included stunning examples of how far the Trump administration stretched its definition of terrorist support or antisemitism to justify deporting aliens. John Armstrong—the chief of the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs—carried out Secretary Rubio’s crackdown on non-citizens. During legal proceedings, Armstrong was asked if a “statement calling for limiting military aid to Israel could be covered” (i.e., sufficient to deport). He answered, “[i]n my opinion, yes.” When did foreign aid become sacred?

Judge Wise concluded her 90-page ruling by declaring that the strength of American democracy,

. . . is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and “behave” or suffer the government’s retaliation. In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech. In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk. In May 2026, it potentially included “weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated” in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.

That warning reverberates as the Trump administration further decimates the privacy of Americans returning from abroad, claiming the right to seize and copy all the contents on their cell phones. The Trump administration proposed that foreign visitors will have to surrender their social media passwords before getting a visa to visit here. How long will it be until the same policy is imposed on American citizens?

Judge Wise declared, “Free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.” But is that “strength” increasingly a mirage in the United States? And how many other illegal actions has the Trump administration taken to suppress dissent that Americans have not yet heard about?

Final question: Is the Trump administration seeking to vindicate every leftist stereotype about conservatives and Republicans being intolerant authoritarians?

James Bovard is an American libertarian author and lecturer whose political commentary targets examples of waste, failures, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power in government. He is a USA Today columnist and is a frequent contributor to The Hill.

September 1, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

YouTube’s Account Enforcement Practices Face Possible FTC Lawsuit

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 31, 2026

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating YouTube’s (Google’s) controversial moderation and account-enforcement policies, a probe that is now in its final stages, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The agency is reportedly considering a potential lawsuit, but no decision has been made. YouTube has not been accused of wrongdoing, and the inquiry may end without enforcement action.

The FTC’s inquiry, which began in 2025, is said to be looking into whether the video giant’s suspension of accounts and removal of content, as well as the way it informs users about these decisions, violates consumer protection laws.

The agency is also reportedly examining whether YouTube broke its own rules when it took down content or reduced its visibility.

Another question the FTC is reportedly trying to answer is if YouTube’s publicly available community guidelines are in line with how content is actually treated on the platform.

In other words, the probe may be looking into the difference between what YouTube says it does, and what it actually does, regarding content policing and censorship.

If the FTC decides to sue Google, it would test whether YouTube’s published rules and its actual enforcement practices diverged in ways that violated consumer-protection law.

But even if the FTC were to find that YouTube had in fact violated consumer-protection laws, the case would not necessarily be about restoring content or accounts that were taken down or giving a particular group of users the right to remain on the platform.

Rather, it would be about making sure that YouTube’s public rules and the way it enforces those rules are in sync. But this could give the government leverage to influence how YouTube does its content policing.

YouTube already has complete control over who can publish on the platform, what content is allowed to stay up, what is made less visible and which creators are allowed to reach their audiences and earn money.

This would not necessarily be good news for free speech on YouTube, as the changes could go either way – the company could be forced to censor more, or less, or censor differently.

The reported YouTube probe is separate from a public inquiry the FTC launched in February 2025. That inquiry asked for information about how social media and video platforms engage in censorship.

This request for information sought public comment on how platforms deny or degrade access to content or users based on speech or affiliations, including through bans, shadow bans, and demonetization, as well as “opaque or unpredictable” procedures, limited notice, and weak appeals.

The public was also asked to comment on whether this type of conduct may violate platforms’ own policies or users’ reasonable expectations, and whether it may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, unfair methods of competition, or other forms of consumer harm.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on YouTube’s Account Enforcement Practices Face Possible FTC Lawsuit

German establishment figures call for ban on country’s most popular party

RT | August 29, 2026

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Wurttemberg Governor Cem Ozdemir have called for the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be banned. The two establishment politicians claim that the country’s most popular party poses a threat to Germany’s constitutional order and democracy.

The AfD is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and enjoys the support of 28% of respondents, according to recent surveys.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration controls while also calling for an end to Germany’s green policies. It is also highly critical of Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

In an opinion piece published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Friday, Pistorius and Ozdemir drew parallels between the modern-day AfD and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party.

“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right,” the politicians, who represent the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, respectively, claimed.

In making their case for outlawing the right-wing party, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that a powerful faction within the AfD espouses the idea of ‘remigration’, thus calling into question the “inviolability of human dignity” enshrined in the German constitution.

“We cannot confront ethnic nationalist ideology through political debate. That would be naive,” the authors wrote.

“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy,” Pistorius and Ozdemir stated.

The two also took issue with the AfD’s supposedly “pro-Russian stance,” describing it as a “security risk.” The opposition party’s calls for Germany to withdraw from the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO are equally “dangerous,” according to the article.

While acknowledging the AfD’s rising popularity, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that widespread public support for the party is another reason why it should be banned outright.

Voting for the opposition party out of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in Germany is no excuse, the authors argued.

“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for,” they wrote.

At present, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classifies the AfD as a ‘suspected right-wing extremist’ entity – a designation that gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) powers to surveil the party and its members. In several regions, local AfD chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month showed that support for Germany’s governing Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc had fallen to 20%, with some 78% of respondents dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on German establishment figures call for ban on country’s most popular party

Federal GRANITE Act Targets Foreign Censorship Orders in US

Foreign censors have discovered that sending threatening emails to US platforms is cheap. Michael Rulli’s bill would make the next step considerably more expensive.

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026

It’s not every day that the US Congress is moved to act by the UK’s speech regulators – but there’s a first time for everything, and that time is now. And that regulator is Ofcom.

But Ofcom – or rather, its overreach – has managed to bring about the introduction of a new bill, the first of its kind at the federal level, even if not the first attempt to produce legislation that would deal with this problem.

The bill is called GRANITE, and the full name is even more interesting: Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act. The man behind it is Republican Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio, who introduced it on August 27, 2026, as H.R. 10174.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Rulli explained the effort as a way to stop “foreign bureaucrats” from deciding what Americans can and can’t say. “My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts,” Rulli is quoted as saying.

“The constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London,” he added. Rulli has the support of senior White House figures.

The background to all this is the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Ofcom’s attempts to use it to go after American online services. Ofcom, for some reason, believes its censorship powers extend to the US.

Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan and helped draft the GRANITE proposals, and supports Rulli’s bill, says that between February 2025 and April 2026, Ofcom sent at least 197 notices to US companies – and only four were publicly refused, all by his clients.

4chan sued Ofcom in a federal court in Washington, invoking the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments – and Ofcom tried to get the case dismissed, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

But in doing that, Ofcom also invoked British law as applicable on US soil, while at the same time claiming immunity from the US lawsuit because it is a foreign state. And Ofcom’s demands arrived in emails marked CONFIDENTIAL and threatened fines and prison.

In the best of worlds, that would be that. But there’s a good chance the foreign order will be obeyed anyway, because big platforms and internet services are generally risk-averse and may not want to pick a fight with a foreign government. That’s where the law comes in.

First, the shield: Proposed section 4106(a) says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.” The shield reaches judgments, fines, orders and demands, not merely court judgments; that matters because regulators often act administratively without judicial supervision.

Now, the sword: Proposed section 4106(b) lets a United States person served or purportedly served with a covered measure seek declaratory relief in federal district court that it is unenforceable: “A United States person against whom a foreign judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a).”

The remedy is declaratory only: the federal proposal does not award damages or authorize seizure of foreign assets.

Finally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act amendment adds an exception for cases “under section 4106;” those are the entire three words of the new paragraph. This is intended to prevent a foreign regulator from ending the suit at the outset by claiming sovereign immunity.

Byrne, Wyoming Deputy Secretary of State Colin Crossman and Wyoming Rep. Daniel Singh developed Wyoming HB 70, introduced in early 2026. The bill passed the state House 46-12 on February 23 but stalled in the Senate during the short budget session; it did not become law.

Wyoming’s proposal combined a shield with a private right of action and proposed statutory damages equal to at least $1 million or the maximum threatened fine. It also proposed blocking state enforcement and cooperation, including assistance with investigations, extradition requests and data demands tied to First Amendment-protected speech.

West Virginia introduced a sword-and-shield version in its short 2026 session, but it did not advance. On July 24, 2026, ALEC adopted shield provisions as national model policy, and a New Hampshire proposal following that model is expected for the 2027 session. Byrne says that by August 28, at least five public versions of the GRANITE blueprint existed.

Rulli’s federal bill is narrower than Wyoming HB 70 because it offers declaratory relief but no damages; on the other hand, its federal authority lets it directly amend sovereign-immunity law.

But even without the proposed bill, the First Amendment already gives strong grounds against enforcement of a foreign censorship order, Preston Byrne writes. The rules, however, are “judge-made” – and a first-instance court could misapply them.

Congress enacted the SPEECH Act in 2010 to block enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with American free speech standards. The proposed GRANITE language would sit beside it in chapter 181 of title 28.

But the threat works even before enforcement. A service can comply, restrict content globally, add age assurance and data collection, leave a market, or fund a fight. A large platform with staff, assets or infrastructure abroad still faces action there even if an American court refuses to help.

Byrne estimates that Ofcom spent about 2,800 staff-hours on the 4chan matter, and obtained zero compliance, one federal lawsuit, and four emails featuring hamsters from 4chan’s counsel.

“An e-mailed demand costs a foreign regulator nothing to send today and is frequently cloaked in secrecy,” he wrote. The bill would make a covered demand capable of triggering public, expensive litigation in America. It has only been introduced.

And so the email sent by a regulator abroad that was once essentially free to send, and was ignored, or replied to with pictures of hamsters – might in the future return to them in the form of a US court date.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Federal GRANITE Act Targets Foreign Censorship Orders in US

New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026

A New York law that opponents say was designed to strong-arm social media companies into censoring speech (under the guise of “transparency”) has survived a First Amendment challenge.

US District Judge John Cronan on Aug 26, 2026, dismissed X’s lawsuit against the “Stop Hiding Hate Act.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law, which applies to companies operating in New York with more than $100 million in annual gross revenue, requires them to submit reports to the New York Attorney General twice a year.

Those reports must include the company’s current terms of service, changes since the previous report, and whether the terms define “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” “harassment,” and “foreign political interference.”

In addition, the reports must describe how these categories are enforced, including through automated systems and human review, responses to user reports, and actions taken against content or users, including removal, banning, demonetization, and deprioritization.

New York can seek up to $15,000 per violation per day for a missing, incomplete, or misleading report, after giving the company 30 days to “cure” the problem.

The Attorney General’s office will also be able to share the information it receives with other state, local, or federal agencies “for the purpose of enforcing any law,” and use it in legal proceedings. Those filing the reports must certify that they are true and accurate, and false statements may be punishable under state law.

X argued that forcing platforms to discuss the state’s contested speech categories and explain their moderation practices burdens protected speech. But Judge Cronan ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent New York from requiring companies to disclose whether and how their terms of service define the listed categories or how those policies are enforced.

The law does not directly command the removal of a particular post, the judge said, treating the act as a disclosure requirement rather than a direct moderation mandate.

New York State describes the act as “promoting transparency in social media” and says that companies must report how they handle “hate speech, racism, misinformation, and other types of content.”

But X and other critics object that the categories are often politically charged and sometimes include constitutionally protected speech, and that the Attorney General is using this to exert pressure on companies to censor speech.

The consequence of the ruling is that New York can continue to collect and audit information about how major platforms classify speech and enforce those classifications. The state can’t directly order X to remove a specific post, but it can penalize the company for missing, incomplete, or misleading accounts of its moderation system.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit

Trump’s push to deport Pro-Palestinian activists faces court defeat

Al Mayadeen | August 29, 2026

A federal judge on Friday ruled that laws used by US President Donald Trump’s administration to revoke visas and pursue deportation proceedings against noncitizen college students over their pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of “Israel” are unconstitutional.

US District Judge Noel Wise in San Jose, California, sharply criticized the US State Department and US Department of Homeland Security for using provisions of federal immigration law to pursue deportation against noncitizens for expressing views the government sought to suppress.

The State Department and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.

Wise says free speech is central to democracy

Wise, an appointee of former Democratic President Joe Biden, said free speech in the United States, including the right to criticize the government and its leaders, demonstrated the strength of the country’s democracy.

“That strength is diminished when members ⁠of our society – citizens and noncitizens alike – must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation,” she said.

Case centered on campus pro-Palestinian advocacy

Wise’s ruling examined the Trump administration’s actions beginning in March 2025, when it started revoking visas and detaining noncitizens involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy on college campuses. The effort began with the arrest of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who is fighting separately to avoid deportation.

The arrests prompted a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by Stanford University’s student newspaper, The Stanford Daily. The newspaper reported that some of its writers who held student visas had stopped covering pro-Palestinian student demonstrations and issues connected to the wars in  West Asia because of the administration’s policies.

The newspaper’s attorneys argued that two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act used by the administration to revoke student visas and begin deportation proceedings violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution when applied to constitutionally protected speech.

Judge finds viewpoint discrimination

The provisions permitted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to deem a noncitizen deportable if he personally concluded that the person’s actions “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest” and also gave him discretion to revoke a person’s visa.

Wise sided with the newspaper, finding that when a noncitizen’s speech is the basis for a visa revocation and deportation decision, “the government is singling out that speech for disfavored treatment based on its viewpoint or ⁠content.”

Conor Fitzpatrick, whose group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression represented The Stanford Daily, said in a statement that the ruling “proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

Ruling follows earlier decision against administration

The decision echoes a ruling last year by Boston-based US District Judge William Young, who likewise determined that the administration had violated the Constitution by pursuing a policy of revoking visas, arresting, detaining and deporting foreign students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Wise also warned that the administration appeared to be expanding its focus to people expressing other views it considered objectionable. She said that eventually the “targets may ⁠include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” she wrote. “Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it.”

What do you need to know?

The ruling comes amid a sweeping Trump administration crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy and campus demonstrations at US universities, including threats to cut federal funding from institutions that permit what the administration termed “illegal protests,” investigations into dozens of universities over alleged failures to address antisemitism, and major funding withdrawals targeting schools such as Columbia University and Harvard.

The administration has also pursued international students and scholars involved in pro-Palestinian activism through visa revocations and deportation proceedings, including high-profile cases.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s push to deport Pro-Palestinian activists faces court defeat

Is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s using measles scare to push Covid-era public health regulations?

By Jefferey Jaxen | August 27, 2026

On August 8, as measles cases climbed across Pennsylvania and schools prepared to reopen, Gov. Josh Shapiro’s Department of Health published a sweeping rewrite of the state’s communicable-disease rules.

17 days later national headlines now report of two measles-associated deaths whose status is current unresolved with several clear anomalies that has the public, politicians and Kennedy himself asking serious questions about their validity.

Regulation 10-242, filed with the Independent Regulatory Review Commission as IRRC No. 3490, runs hundreds of pages and would remake 28 Pa. Code Chapter 27 — the same chapter that governed isolation, reporting, and outbreak control long before Covid. Public comment closes September 21. Shapiro’s gubernatorial election vote happens on November 3 the stakes are high.

The political context is harder to ignore.

The rule update would erode parent consent in a child’s health care, create a mandatory vaccine tracking database, and give the Department of Health access to children’s medical records without parental consent.

Specifically regarding measles, the newly proposed rule would create a category called § 27.160 isolation plus outbreak quarantine of “presumed susceptibles.”

The rule would pair isolation with outbreak quarantine of those presumed ‘susceptibles’ and keep them out of a setting until they prove they are not susceptible, take a measles vaccine, or no cases occur there for 21 days.

In an outbreak concentrated in communities with religious or philosophical exemptions, that is not a technical tweak. It is a lever.

The proposed rule would do far more than update a measles protocol. Under the draft, the department or a local health authority “may enter an apartment, building, health care facility, school, college or university, or other location” during an investigation if the official shows agency credentials. No warrant is required. People may not “interfere.” In schools, officials would get “reasonable and timely access” to students for contact tracing or partner services and could “meet and speak with a student or other person in private.” The text does not require parental notice, parental presence, or parental consent before that interview.

Reportable diseases, infections, and conditions would expand from about 52 to 125, including COVID-19 and an open-ended “emerging disease or condition”

House Republican Leader Jesse Topper called the package “oppressive COVID-era policies” and demanded it be withdrawn.

“Submitting these regulations seems to be devoid of any understanding of our recent history of dangerous government overreach…”

Shapiro’s office and the legacy media have treated the outbreak and, still unconfirmed, measles deaths as proof of leadership and treated Kennedy as the face of “anti-science.”

The regulation tells a different story. It is a bid to restore, by rule-making, authorization the failed pandemic response taught many Pennsylvanians to fear and reject. While a contested measles emergency still dominates the news the rule’s public comment file is open. The election is not far behind.

August 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Comments Off on Is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s using measles scare to push Covid-era public health regulations?

US sanctions Palestine Action, designates group as ‘terrorist organization’

Press TV – August 26, 2026

The Trump administration has imposed sanctions on UK-based Palestine Action, freezing its US assets and prohibiting Americans from providing funds, goods or services to the pro-Palestine group.

The US Treasury Department announced the measure on Wednesday, designating Palestine Action as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT), according to a notice published on its website.

The designation blocks any property or financial interests belonging to the group that fall under US jurisdiction and generally bars US persons from conducting transactions with it.

It also prohibits the provision of funds, goods or services to the group, with violations potentially carrying civil or criminal penalties.

The move makes Palestine Action the first known British left-wing activist group to face US so-called counterterrorism sanctions over activities Washington considers “terrorism.”

The designation places it on the same US sanctions list as groups including al-Qaeda and the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group.

The measures could also put British citizens who continue to fund Palestine Action or participate in activities on its behalf at risk of US sanctions and visa restrictions.

The US State Department said the action forms part of a broader campaign against what it describes as transnational far-left terrorism, including efforts to identify and disrupt international networks that organize, facilitate or carry out “violent activities.”

The designation follows the UK government’s decision in July 2025 to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, citing the group’s targeting of companies linked to Israel’s military industry.

Palestine Action has focused much of its campaign on Elbit Systems UK, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, which the group says has supplied weapons to the Israeli military during the genocidal war in Gaza.

In June 2025, activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged military aircraft, an incident that preceded the British government’s decision to proscribe the group.

The group’s US branch, Palestine Action US, was formed with a similar aim of targeting and disrupting companies and military contractors connected to Israel. It later rebranded as Unity of Fields.

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori denounced the US move, saying the group’s actions were aimed at disrupting Israel’s military industry.

The US sanctions come as Palestine Action continues to challenge its proscription in Britain. In July, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the government’s decision, ruling that Palestine Action was not an “ordinary protest group.”

However, the UK Supreme Court has since granted Ammori permission to challenge the ban. The case is scheduled to be heard between October 1 and December 21.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on US sanctions Palestine Action, designates group as ‘terrorist organization’

US journalist says he was interrogated over criticism of Ben-Gvir

Al Mayadeen | August 22, 2026

US journalist Ethan Levins said he was questioned by the Department of Homeland Security after returning to the United States from Lebanon, revealing that authorities asked him about his criticism of Israeli Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

In a post on X, Levins said the questioning took place the previous day and that authorities focused on why he had posted negative comments about Ben Gvir.

“I am a born American who lives in the United States, and they stopped me at the airport for an Israeli politician,” Levins wrote.

He added, “I’m serious.”

Ethan Levins says ‘Israel’ is attacking him personally

In a separate post, Levins said “Israel” was personally targeting him, warning his followers that any sudden halt in his social media activity would mean he had been forced to stop.

Levins said he regularly publishes across his accounts and provides hourly updates on Telegram, emphasizing that he is never inactive. He asked followers to notify others if something happened to him.

“If something happens to me, please let everyone know. I post daily across my accounts, and hourly updates on Telegram. I am NEVER inactive. If I suddenly stop, then it means I’ve been forced,” he wrote in a post on X.

“I am an American Christian, and Israel is attacking me personally,” he stressed.

Ethan Levins says he fears for his safety after detention

In yet another post on X, Levins said he was genuinely afraid for his safety after speaking out against an Israeli minister and being detained by the US government. He questioned why he was being punished by Israeli authorities despite being an American citizen.

“I’m genuinely afraid for my safety. I spoke against an Israeli Minister, and was detained by my own government. I’m an American, yet I’m punished by the Israelis. Why?,” he wrote on X.

In a further statement on X, Ethan Levins said he was detained by the US Department of Homeland Security for three hours and questioned exclusively about “Israel” and Israeli Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“I was detained by the Department of Homeland Security for 3 hours. They didn’t ask a SINGLE QUESTION about the United States. They ONLY asked me about Israel and Ben Gvir,” he wrote.

“I’m an American, why does the DHS care so much about protecting Ben Gvir?,” he questioned.

Levins links DHS questioning to Ben Gvir in X post

Levins later referred to Ben-Gvir as the same person about whom, he said, Department of Homeland Security officials questioned him during his detention the previous day.

“This is the same guy the DHS detained and questioned me about yesterday. Apparently the Department of Homeland Security works for Ben Gvir, not the United States.”

Levins shared a post by Ben-Gvir dated June 19, in which the Israeli minister called for Lebanon to suffer in response to the deaths of Israeli mothers.

“For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn! With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens,” Ben-Gvir wrote.

Levins accuses Trump of abandoning Americans for ‘Israel’ and Epstein files

Taking to X again, Levins launched a sharp attack on US President Donald Trump, accusing him of abandoning concerns over rising gas, housing and food prices, as well as the lives of US service members.

Levins stressed that Trump’s priorities had instead shifted to concealing the Epstein files and waging wars in support of “Israel”, portraying the president’s approach as a betrayal of the “MAGA” movement.

“The ONLY thing he cared about was hiding the Epstein files and fighting wars for Israel. This is NOT ‘MAGA’, this is betrayal,” he stressed.

Levins’ case reflects growing concerns among Americans who say criticism of “Israel” and the Trump administration’s unwavering support for it can carry consequences, particularly as opposition mounts to Israeli influence over US policy and Washington’s role in the war on Iran.

An Israeli rhetoric with grave human rights implications

Levins’ criticism of Ben-Gvir came as the Israeli minister’s rhetoric continued to draw scrutiny, particularly over his remarks regarding Lebanon and Gaza.

Ben-Gvir has openly advocated killings, executions, and the permanent settlement of Gaza while describing Palestinians as people who “don’t deserve to live.”

Such statements raise grave concerns under international human rights and humanitarian law, which protect the right to life and prohibit arbitrary killing, collective punishment, and the forced displacement of civilians.

The United Nations has identified killings of civilians, collective punishment, incitement to violence, and the denial of essential resources as matters requiring investigation under international law.

The remarks went beyond inflammatory language, raising serious concerns about the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and the extent to which such rhetoric can normalize the targeting, killing, and forced displacement of civilians.

August 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on US journalist says he was interrogated over criticism of Ben-Gvir

Flock cameras destroyed as anti-surveillance protests spread

RT | August 21, 2026

As more US police departments deploy Flock cameras to monitor traffic and track criminals, public backlash has grown. In San Diego, a protester dressed as Darth Vader showed up to a city council meeting to portray Flock as a tool for tracking “rebel scum.”

There are now more than 130,000 Flock cameras dotting the US, with law enforcement departments in at least 4,000 cities erecting the AI-powered surveillance devices on intersections, parking lots, and public land. Flock Technologies says the cameras have helped police stop burglaries, carjackings, and homicides, but opponents say they encroach on civil liberties.

At a meeting of the San Diego City Council on Wednesday, a man dressed as Star Wars villain Darth Vader shared his opinion on the technology, approaching the podium with his character’s signature mechanical breathing.

“The Emperor is a fan of Flock, and we must continue utilising Flock technologies so that we can surveil the rebel scum,” he declared. “As they move from playground to playground, from playground to pool, from pool to gymnasium, because we all know that the Flock cameras are not only following the license plate readers, they are following children.”

Flock is best known for its Falcon ALPR (Automated License Plate Recognition) cameras, which capture still images of passing vehicles. However, the company’s Condor PTZ video cameras can be used by police departments to track the movement of individuals across multiple cameras with AI, and search for people via description.

Flock’s Falcon ALPR cameras have already been used by more than 50 police officers to stalk women – including ex-wives and partners – without their consent, the Washington Post reported earlier this month. Vulnerabilities in Flock’s software have also left images of children, recorded with the company’s video cameras, exposed online.

“I need this so I can stalk my ex-girlfriend,” ‘Darth Vader’ told the city council meeting. “This technology will help us find Luke Skywalker as he traverses the universe in his X-Wing.”

The rollout of Flock cameras began at scale in 2020, but the process has not been smooth.  Flock cameras have been shot, spray-painted, cut down, and obstructed across the country. According to FlockStats, a website that counts confirmed incidents of vandalism against the devices, at least 162 have been destroyed nationwide.

As the cameras have proliferated, so have their detractors. Republican Representative Thomas Massie is among the highest-profile opponents of the technology, introducing a bill last month that would withhold federal funding from police departments deploying the cameras. Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, a Democrat, has also ordered cities to pause the installation of Flock cameras until the state develops new privacy legislation. – Videos

August 21, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , | Comments Off on Flock cameras destroyed as anti-surveillance protests spread

David Miller on his victory over Zionism, Pax Judaica, and Jewish Supremacy

If Americans Knew | August 17, 2026

David Miller is a British sociologist whose research and publications focus on Islamophobia and propaganda. Miller was Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol, where he was dismissed by the university because it was deemed he had not met the standards of behavior expected from staff. The dismissal related to allegations from students that Miller engaged in antisemitism during one of his lectures.

Miller was ultimately cleared of any unlawful behavior. In 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the 2024 Employment Tribunal finding that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs constituted a protected philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

In this interview Miller discusses his victory over Zionism, Pax Judaica, and Jewish Supremacy. Miller describes how the United States and its powerful armed forces have become a proxy for the Jewish state’s imperial interests.

For the entire interview, visit:    • David Miller CRUSHES Zionists in Court  

August 19, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Comments Off on David Miller on his victory over Zionism, Pax Judaica, and Jewish Supremacy

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »