By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 7, 2025
An Australian woman whose X post was censored based on what are known as “informal” notices, issued by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to social platforms, has appealed against the decision and won.
This was more of an uphill battle than getting censorship decisions revoked usually involves: the “informal” nature of the notices means that normally they cannot even be appealed – and eSafety’s main argument was that the appeal should not even be considered.
But the X user, Celine Baumgarten, managed to convince the Administrative Review Tribunal the censorship notice should not be considered “informal” and that her complaint was therefore within the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Baumgarten’s post from May 2024 detailed a “queer club” in Melbourne that was operating in a primary school, organized for children 8 to 12 years old.
“There is absolutely NO place for any type of LGBTxyz club in a PRIMARY SCHOOL, or any school for that matter,” Baumgarten, herself a bisexual and an activist, wrote at the time, adding, “Children should NOT be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age. This is foul. Leave the kids ALONE.”
Next, in swooped Grant’s office, with what they maintain was no more than a “complaint alert” to X – as opposed to a removal notice – referring to “adult cyber-abuse material” as the reason to have Baumgarten’s post blocked for X users in Australia.
eSafety essentially tried to “sneak in” censorship under the guise of an “informal notice” – aware that an official takedown request was impossible given that they found their own rules were not violated, not in the entirety of their many parts.
X erred on the side of censorship and blocked the post for two months, to then inform Baumgarten this was done “in error.” Interestingly, Instagram, which received the same eSafety notice, ignored it.
And now the tribunal has done much more than vindicate Baumgarten; the judge broke down eSafety’s process to reveal that while asserting that the notice was “informal” and referring to the terms of use X has for itself – the complaint was actually lodged via X’s channels “for use by government authorities to submit valid legal requests for the removal from X of potentially illegal content.”
All this was interpreted by Justice Emilios Kyrou to mean that the censorship notice was clearly official and therefore eligible to be appealed.
Since eSafety prefers what it calls “informal” to “official” takedown notices (several hundred vs. three or four just over the past year), the implication of the ruling could be significant – prompting a review of other such “informal” reports.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 5, 2025
UK’s government is accused of attempting to rush a controversial bill – the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error & Recovery) Bill – through parliament. Critics say the draft legislation contains some dystopian social credit-style surveillance provisions.
The 116-page bill was only introduced a week ago, prompting rights campaigner Big Brother Watch to conclude that MPs may not even have enough time to read the text before they are supposed to start debating it.
Despite its very public-spirited title – the bill’s opponents are warning that under the guise of preventing mass waste of taxpayer money through benefit fraud, it would also serve to set up a system of “mass spying” of bank accounts, carried out by the government (the Department for Work and Pensions, DWP).
That includes constant monitoring of people’s bank statements, the ability to revoke driving licenses, and search premises, computers, and other devices.
The UK’s welfare system would in this way be turned into “a digital surveillance system (…) with unprecedented privacy intrusions,” said Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo.
On the other hand, the DWP claims that while they will have access to bank statements belonging to accounts targeted as defrauding the benefits system, and be able to cause money to be taken from those accounts – they won’t have “direct access to actual accounts.”
That’s cold comfort, privacy groups are suggesting, since the law then expands into requiring that banks and building societies submit reports about suspected fraud, which will allow DWP investigators to exercise their new ability to ask for search warrants, and then together with the police carry out searches, including of houses and devices.
It appears to be yet another example of a “two-tier” system in the UK, this time tied to the justice system – at least judging by Carlo’s interpretation.
She is concerned that, on the one hand, the most at-risk part of society – the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, will be deprived of the right to be heard in court and become more vulnerable to, catastrophic to their financial situation, “mistaken punishments.”
On the other, Carlo said the provisions represent “totally unprecedented privacy intrusions and punishments that will do more damage to fundamental British values of fairness and justice than to the serious fraudsters.”
Sputnik – 06.02.2025
Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment was driven by CIA and USAID operatives, claims US author Michael Shellenberger, known for his work on Elon Musk’s Twitter Files project.
What does Shellenberger assert?
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 5, 2025
Judging by the most recent statements made by UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, the government feels it will have to implement even more stringent speech-restrictive measures than those contained in the sweeping and controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act.
Appearing on a BBC political talk show, Cooper kept beating the now well-established drum the ruling Labour has gone for in the wake of last year’s Southport killings, and subsequent mass protests – namely, to try to portray social media companies as somehow “a part of the crime,” which is verbatim how the cabinet minister put it.
One of the recurring themes these last weeks, since the Southport trial saw its conclusion, has been that tech companies are “morally responsible” for not deleting (that request came only last week) one of the violent videos viewed by the killer, Axel Rudakubana.
This request was made even though said companies are under no legal obligation to do that, until the spring of this year and the start of the enforcement of some parts of the Online Safety Act.
The stage set that way, Cooper’s logic – or lack thereof – goes like this: “We are being clear that we are prepared to go further if the Online Safety Act measures are not working as effectively as we need them to do,” she told the host, Laura Kuenssberg.
There is no way to predict how social media firms will act once they are under obligation to remove certain types of content – and yet Cooper is already threatening to make the Online Safety Act even worse.
After the case played out in court, the authorities are now going to organize an inquiry that will broaden the narrative and examine how social media, i.e., the content that third parties can publish there, is influencing “online radicalization” (Cooper mentions Islamist and far-right extremism in the same breath) and “obsession with violence” among young people.
At one point – but well into this attempt to implicate the availability of both illegal and legal content related to violence as an important factor behind the Southport tragedy – the interviewer mentions that Rudakubana was “on the radar of the social services, he was on the radar of Prevent, a Home Office program, and yet no one stopped him.”
When asked whose responsibility it was to stop him before the crime, Cooper danced around the topic (but surprisingly, didn’t name social networks.)
By Oscar GRENFELL | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 5, 2025
For the second time, the cricket world has provided a petty, vindictive and downright ridiculous example of the broader campaign by the powers-that-be to silence opposition to the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
In December 2023, the International Cricket Council (ICC) forbade Australian batsman Usman Khawaja from taking the field in international matches with shoes that read “all lives are equal” and “freedom is a human right.” The bureaucrats, who run the game from the ICC’s headquarters in the dictatorial United Arab Emirates, deemed those statements to be “political” because they were regarded as a reference to Israel’s mass murder of Palestinians.
The ICC’s suspicious and hostile attitude to professions of human rights and basic decency has now been matched by the Sports Entertainment Network, which runs the popular SEN sports radio broadcaster.
Over the weekend, SEN unceremoniously dumped Peter Lalor, a widely-respected cricket commentator, over posts he made on his X/Twitter account referencing Gaza. The sacking was done in a hurry. Lalor was in Sri Lanka as a freelance commentator commissioned by SEN to cover the ongoing Australia-Sri Lanka Test cricket series when he was dismissed.
Lalor had commentated the first test in Galle without incident, and was scheduled to cover the second. Why then the sudden rush by SEN to sever all ties with a leading cricket expert? For anyone familiar with the witch-hunts of the past 16 months that have accompanied the Israeli war crimes, inevitably “upset” and “offended” Zionists were in the picture.
As per Lalor’s account, “I was asked by station boss Craig Hutchison, who was civil, if I didn’t care that my retweeting of events in Gaza made Jewish people in Melbourne feel unsafe. I said I didn’t want anyone to feel unsafe.” Predictably, Hutchison reportedly related accusations that Lalor may be an antisemite, which has been the go-to line for shutting down opposition to the assault on Gaza.
Lalor went on: “The following day Hutchison told me that because the ‘sound of my voice made people feel unsafe’ and that people are ‘triggered by my voice,’ I could not cover the cricket for them anymore.”
If Zionists were telling SEN management that Lalor’s measured commentary of a Test cricket match was making them feel “unsafe,” the appropriate response would have been to dismiss the remarks as absurd.
More to the point, SEN should have noted that the complainants were making a cynical bid to have someone sacked for disagreeing with them politically. They should have told the witch-hunters to stop harassing their employee.
But, as has so often been the case with the Zionist witch-hunts, SEN management rolled over.
After Lalor’s sacking, Hutchison issued a nauseating statement. “SEN Cricket is a celebration of differences and nationalities,” it proclaimed, although those “differences” evidently did not extend to opposing the unfolding genocide or referencing the mass killing of Palestinians. To justify its censorship, the statement went on to describe the station as a “a place where our SEN audience can escape what is an increasingly complex and sometimes triggering world.”
Like the saga of Khawaja’s shoes, the most striking aspect of this incident is the complete mismatch between Lalor’s “offence” and the response. Lalor is not accused of ever having mentioned Gaza during a broadcast, so the references to the sound of his voice are presumably because it reminds the Zionists of his X/Twitter feed.
Moreover, the posts on his feed are simply not of a highly controversial character. In any objective assessment, Lalor comes across as a humane and democratically minded man, disturbed by the mass killing of Palestinians and wishing for an end to war.
Most of his posts were retweets from other accounts. As per Lalor’s account, Hutchison indicated that SEN was hit with complaints over Lalor during the first Test match, played from January 29 to February 1. It is difficult to determine when something was retweeted, as against when it was posted by the original account.
But some of Lalor’s X content around that time included retweeting a post reporting that “Palestine Red Crescent teams have recovered another 14 decomposed Palestinian bodies from several areas on the Rashid Coastal Road in Gaza.”
Another was a statement by a Palestinian Christian leader, condemning the invitation by US President Donald Trump for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Washington. The pastor wrote, “The man who has an arrest warrant for him from the ICC [International Criminal Court] is invited to the White House as a guest of honor. This is the world we live in. Faith leaders must make their voices heard in times like this.” Other retweets by Lalor have highlighted the plight of Palestinian children and prisoners.
People instigating a witch-hunt over such content, which has nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, are simply supporters of war crimes.
Media and cricket figures have spoken out in defence of Lalor.
Khawaja declared on Instagram: “Standing up for the people of Gaza is not antisemitic nor does it have anything to do with my Jewish brothers and sisters in Australia, but everything to do with the Israeli government and their deplorable actions. It has everything to do with justice and human rights.” He concluded: “Pete is a good guy with a good heart. He deserves better.”
As per Lalor’s account of the sacking, “I was told in one call there were serious organisations making complaints; in another, I was told that this was not the case.”
Throughout the genocide, right-wing Zionist lobby groups that collaborate closely with the Israeli state and support its every crime against the Palestinians have fraudulently been depicted by governments and the media as representative Jewish organisations. Their every pronouncement has been reported uncritically and they have had access to the corridors of power.
These groups have repeatedly instigated witch-hunts targeting critics of Israel. Journalist Antoinette Lattouf is currently in the Federal Court, having brought a case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for unlawful termination. Lattouf was sacked halfway through a week-long fill-in position, after a concerted campaign by Zionist lawyers who barraged the ABC with vexatious complaints.
Lattouf’s sacking, ostensibly because she shared a post to her personal social media from Human Rights Watch condemning Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, occurred in December 2023. The dismissal of Lalor, more than a year later, in such similar circumstances, underscores the normalisation of witch-hunting and politically motivated sackings by the Australian political, media and corporate establishment.
Such repressive measures set a precedent for broader attacks on working people as they enter into struggle against the broader eruption of militarism, including Australia’s transformation into a frontline state for a US-led war against China, completed by the same federal Labor government that has consistently backed Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 05.02.2025
American tech giant Google has faced regulatory scrutiny on numerous occasions amid accusations of antitrust violations. Google’s relationship with the CIA, ranging from early financial support to collaborative efforts have been decried as undermining privacy rights and free speech in the digital landscape.
Google’s creation played a crucial role in the US intelligence community’s scheme to attain global dominance by controlling information.
How it Started
CIA Steps In
PRISM
By Liz Heflin | Remix News | February 5, 2025
The European Commission is essentially manipulating NGOs to achieve its own goals in exchange for financial support. A Dutch newspaper has exposed part of this process, writes Magyar Nemzet, which then shows how Brussels does this and who the biggest domestic beneficiaries are.
On Jan. 22, De Telegraaf reported on secret contracts that the European Commission had signed with green NGOs to conduct alleged covert lobbying activities. According to the newspaper, the lobbying organizations, commissioned by Brussels with EU money, were tasked with persuading MEPs and member states to support the commission’s ambitious green policy initiatives.
For example, the European Environment Bureau (EEB), an umbrella organization for green groups, was tasked with providing at least 16 examples of how the European Parliament had tightened green legislation thanks to its lobbying. According to documents reviewed by the newspaper, the EEB was also tasked with supporting the controversial nature restoration bill initiated by former Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
In addition, they could use around €700,000 in support to steer the debate on agricultural activity in a more environmentally friendly direction.
In Hungary, the EU provides funding to certain organizations, which then use their activities to serve Brussels’ political goals. Here are some examples.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee is heavily dependent on international funding. According to their latest available financial report for 2023, more than 61 percent of their annual income came from private foundations, including George Soros’s organization. They received a total of 48.85 million forints from the European Commission, which accounted for 6.1 percent of their income. Helsinki has received funding for various projects serving legal protection purposes, typically for several years.
In recent years, the organization has often criticized the Hungarian government’s immigration policy, especially the measures related to border closures and the operation of transit zones, and has also undertaken the legal representation of migrants, for example, at the European Court of Human Rights.
One of the “results” of Helsinki’s operation is that in June 2024, the European Court of Justice imposed a migration fine of €200 million on Hungary and ordered our country to pay an additional €1 million per day until we change the relevant regulations.
Helsinki has actively contributed to the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report, which contains a number of criticisms of Hungary, including problems and recommendations in the areas of justice, the fight against corruption, and institutional checks and balances. The Helsinki Committee, together with other NGOs, including Transparency International Hungary, has submitted a nearly 100-page submission to the European Commission, which is withholding billions of euros from Hungary.
Transparency International Hungary (TI Hungary) has regularly attacked the Hungarian government in recent years, primarily on issues related to corruption, lack of transparency, and the management of public funds.
The organization also receives significant foreign funding, including funds from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, but their supporters also include the European Commission, from which they received a total of 13.7 million forints in revenue, according to their 2023 report.
Transparency International produces its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) every year, which is used to calculate which countries are the most and least corrupt in the world. Tamás Lánczi, president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, has already held the organization accountable for the bias experienced in determining the CPI.
All of this is significant because the index serves as a reference point for the withholding of EU funds due to Hungary.
The 2023 report from Amnesty International Hungary shows that the organization is significantly dependent on foreign sources.
Their revenues from the European Union budget, as well as other states and international organizations, exceeded 170 million forints, which represented 42 percent of their total revenue in that year.
They received almost 53 million forints in funding from the European Commission in 2023, which is almost 13 percent of their total annual income. They received the money as the winner of a call for proposals under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Value (CERV) program to promote gender equality. Amnesty has been working against Hungary’s interests on several fronts, as shown below.
The organization reports that it prepared its analysis related to the European Commission’s annual rule of law assessment, which examined, among other things, the Hungarian justice system, corruption, the press, civil society organizations, and the legislature. It says: “The success of our work, which has been carried out for four years, together with our civil society friends, is also demonstrated by the fact that many of our recommendations are reflected in the report published in July.”
In other words, they are explicitly proud of having put Hungary at a disadvantage.
The annual report also mentions that in March 2023, in addition to the European Parliament, 15 EU member states joined the European Commission v. Hungary lawsuit filed on the side of the commission over the child protection law adopted in 2021. Amnesty boasts that the actions of many member states are due to their work.
The Hungarian Digital Media Observatory (Lakmusz–HDMO) was established in January 2023 as the Hungarian center of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), established by the European Commission in 2020. Six organizations work together within the framework of the project: Political Capital, Mérték Médiaelemző Műhely, AFP news agency, Lakmusz, Idea Foundation and Epresspack. According to their own admission, their activities include fact-checking and related research and analysis, and they also provide training for journalists and teachers on the topic of fact-checking and conscious media consumption.
The HDMO Project is being implemented with the partial support of the European Commission, and the consortium forming the HDMO was selected by the Commission through an open tender. Lakmusz, which participated in the project, has also previously attacked the Hungarian government. For example, they have tried to discredit the institution of the national consultation on several occasions. Political Capital, Mérték, and Lakmusz can also be directly or indirectly linked to the foundations of George Soros.
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 4, 2025
The Senate Finance Committee today narrowly advanced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
The 14-13 vote along party lines came after Kennedy secured the vote of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that oversees HHS. Cassidy was the lone Republican considered to be a possible hold-out.
The Senate is expected to vote on Kennedy’s confirmation later this week or early next week, ABC News reported. The nomination “is likely to succeed absent any last-minute vote switches,” The Associated Press reported.
Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), can be confirmed even if up to three Republican senators and all Democrats vote against him in the full Senate.
If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee a $1.7 trillion budget and 90,000 employees. HHS oversees 13 public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
During today’s committee meeting, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said, “It is time to put a disruptor” like Kennedy at the helm of the HHS. “I hope he goes wild,” Tillis said.
Shares of vaccine manufacturers and packaged food companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Novavax, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Mondelez and Hershey, dropped after today’s vote, Reuters reported.
CHD CEO Mary Holland welcomed today’s outcome. She said:
“CHD is delighted that the Finance Committee is sending RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate. Given the 2024 presidential results, this seems only fitting. ‘Make America Healthy Again’ has become a worldwide rallying cry, and CHD is proud to be a foundational part of this movement.”
In a statement, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, also welcomed today’s vote. He said:
“Americans demand a frank conversation about the state of our government healthcare agencies, and we’re very grateful for the Senators who responded by voting to move RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate.
“RFK Jr. has been asking the tough questions, and he’s been unmoved in the face of big-corporate money campaigns against him.”
In a statement before the vote, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chair of the committee, said that if confirmed, Kennedy “will have the opportunity to deliver much-needed change to our nation’s healthcare system.”
Cassidy, Kennedy agree to ‘unprecedently close collaborative relationship’
During last week’s hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, Cassidy said he was “struggling” with some of Kennedy’s positions regarding vaccines.
“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning,” Cassidy posted on X earlier today. “I want to thank VP JD [Vance] specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”
Following today’s vote, Cassidy delivered remarks on the Senate floor, revealing the content of those discussions and the agreement he made with Kennedy to secure his vote.
He said Kennedy committed to a strong public health role for Congress and to meeting or speaking with Cassidy multiple times per month. They also agreed that Cassidy will participate in the hiring process for HHS and the public health agencies it oversees.
“He and I will have an unprecedently close collaborative relationship,” Cassidy said, noting that the hiring decisions that will follow “will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who have contacted me over this past weekend.”
Kennedy also agreed to maintain statements on the CDC website that vaccines do not cause autism and to maintain the recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Cassidy said he would also reject any attempt to remove the public’s access to “life-saving vaccines” without “iron-clad, causational scientific evidence” indicating otherwise. He also said he would carefully monitor any attempt to “wrongfully sow public confusion” about vaccines.
Cassidy conceded that “many mothers do need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe” and expressed his support for Kennedy’s positions on toxic foods and reforming the NIH.
“These commitments, and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to Make America Healthy Again, is the basis of my support,” Cassidy said, noting that institutions like NIH and FDA require “reform.”
During last week’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy emphasized his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda and said he would work to tackle the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.
Kennedy also said he would implement “radical transparency” in HHS. He also voiced support for vaccines — if backed by “good science.”
Related articles in The Defender
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.
By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025
“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.
Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.
Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)
NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.
Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”
The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.
Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.
What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:
Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.
It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.
The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.
There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?
I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.
After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.
It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 4, 2025
A review of the UK’s policy on extremism, dubbed by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper a “Rapid Analytical Sprint” was announced last summer, shortly after the Southport stabbings.
And now, the paper it produced has been leaked to the Policy Exchange think tank.
The results of the analysis and the recommendations revealed in the leak show that the UK government’s policy may be headed toward more free speech crackdowns, through a number of new measures.
They include introducing new criminal offenses and a new definition of “extremism” itself; in the first instance, it is “harmful online communications” that should be criminalized.
The paper recommends redefining extremism in very broad terms: instead of referring to a particular ideology, it would now cover “behaviors or activity of concern” – like whatever is considered misinformation or a conspiracy theory; misogyny, violence against women and girls – but also involvement in “an online subculture called the manosphere.”
The think tank’s reading of the paper is that it aims to de-emphasize ideologies in general, and Islamism in particular, and instead focus on “behaviors and activity of concern.”
In addition to those already mentioned, some others are the “fixture on gore and violence without adherence to an extremist ideology,” “preventing integration,” and, “influencing racism and intolerance.”
When it comes to existing laws concerning hate crimes – that are, as it is, vague – the idea is to introduce longer prison sentences for people convicted on those charges.
The leaked paper also seeks to reverse the decision to limit the number of “non-crime hate incidents,” NCHIs, that the police record, by reopening the floodgates for these complaints that are often frivolous and waste police time and resources.
The intention was to only log NCHIs that represent real risk of significant harm to individuals or groups “with a particular characteristic” – or that this might happen in the future.
Reacting to reports based on the leak, Home Office Minister Dan Jarvis denied that NCHI reporting would be expanded – other, that is, than when it concerns “Islamophobia” and “anti-Semitism.”
But the authorities admitted they plan to introduce longer sentences for those whose “hate crimes” target LGB and T persons.
Regarding “the sprint” itself, a spokesperson for the Home Office said that the contents of the document have not been formalized and that ministers are how “considering a wide range of potential next steps arising from that work.”
RT | February 4, 2025
The journalist who claimed that the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron was actually born a man is reportedly seeking political asylum in Russia. In an interview with Izvestia, Natacha Rey and her lawyer, Francois Danglehant, have cited “persecution” in France as the reason for her decision.
Rey alleged in 2021 that Brigitte Macron is actually the transgender identity of her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux. Rey spent three years researching Macron’s supposed secret and later published a video on her findings on social media. Since then, she has been the subject of judicial action in France.
Explaining her decision to seek asylum in Russia, Rey described the country as a great democracy compared to France, which, in her view, persecutes the political opposition and restricts freedom of speech.
“Why did I choose Russia? Because it is a great nation, a great civilization which I admire, defending traditional and Christian values that are inherent to me,” she told Izvestia. According to Rey, Russia has been a “victim of a disinformation campaign and unjustified attacks by European and American media for decades.” … Full article
Candace Owens | January 31, 2025
Chapter one of my investigative series “Becoming Brigitte”.
Candace Official Website: https://candaceowens.com
Candace Merch: https://shop.candaceowens.com
Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
Remix News | February 4, 2025
German MP Sahra Wagenknecht, who leads the self-proclaimed BSW party, urged a referendum on migration in an interview. Referendums on migration are not unprecedented in Europe, the first was held in Hungary in 2016, and the second in Poland in 2023,
“A migration policy that is supported by the majority of the population requires a referendum that gives the federal government a fundamental direction,” Wagenknecht told AFP over the weekend, as reported in Die Welt.
She believes a referendum with a clear result would counter the polarization of society and could take the wind out of the sails of the increasingly popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Wagenknecht further accused the German government of a failure in its migration policy.
“For 10 years, they have allowed a loss of control over migration, which the majority of people in Germany, including most well-integrated immigrants, do not want,” she said.
There is currently no legal basis for a federal referendum in Germany, although smaller states, such as Berlin, offer non-binding referendum votes on local issues. It is also unclear what the exact wording of Wagenknecht’s proposal would be. Many polls show that a majority of Germans want reductions in migrant numbers and say that migrants bring more disadvantages than benefits.
In the wake of soaring crime, terror attacks, and massive burdens on public service, Germans are now saying that migration is the “most important problem.” That is according to the research group Wahlen, which showed 41 percent of men and women listed this, in equal numbers, as the most important issue heading into national elections. That beats out the economy and concerns about the Alternative for Germany party (AfD).
In addition, a majority of Germans are in favor of permanent border controls and rejecting asylum seekers without documentation, according to Wahlen.
“Germans are divided on the question of whether the Union should accept votes from the AfD when’voting on a stricter migration policy: 48 percent of those surveyed think this is “not a good thing,’ 47 percent think it is ‘good.’ At the same time, a clear majority of those surveyed, 63 and 56 percent respectively, are in favor of rejecting asylum seekers without documents and of permanent border controls,” writes NZZ about the Wahlen research polling.
Other countries have utilized referendums, such as Hungary and Poland.
Hungary held a referendum on resettlement quotas in 2016, in which 98.36 percent of valid voters rejected the possibility of the European Union requiring the resettlement of migrants to Hungary, even bypassing Hungarian legislation.
In 2023, Poland held a referendum, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s deputy prime minister at the time, saying that it “will decide the fate of Poland and Poles, whether they can live in a safe, peaceful country.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Actually, None is Necessary
By Fred Reed • Unz Review • December 13, 2020
The Correlation of Armed Forces: U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $634.8 billion in 2019. Exports were $163.0 billion; imports were $471.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $308.8 billion in 2019. Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $76.7 billion in 2019. Services exports were $56.5 billion; services imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $36.4 billion in 2019.
There is talk within the Washingtoniat of a possible war with China. Steve Bannon, who apparently was dropped on his head as a child, actually favors such a war. We hear the usual shoo-the-boobs alarm about how the Chinese are doing something terrible and we must gird our loins and American values and show them what for, bow wow, woof. The danger is that the current game of who-blinks-first in Asian waters might actually provoke a shooting war. You know the kind of thing: One warship refuses to get out of the way of another, a collision ensues, some retard lieutenant who signed up on waivers opens fire, and we’re off and running. It is not a good idea to let children play with matches.
The said war is discussed either in emotional terms by idiots or in purely naval terms by those familiar with such things, so we hear of the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain and whose missiles against the other’s missiles and so on. This would be appropriate if we were fighting World War Two again. Which we aren’t. Let’s take a quick-and-dirty look at how such a war might go.
To begin the war, America would overestimate itself and underestimate China. This is doctrine in the Pentagon. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 