Bipartisan Push to Shield Free Speech Targets Abusive Lawsuits
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 9, 2024
A new bipartisan bill – the Free Speech Protection Act – has been introduced in the US Congress with the goal of improving ways to fight what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Congressman Jamie Raskin and Kevin Kiley are behind the House proposal, while “companion” legislation in the Senate is sponsored by Ron Wyden.
SLAPPs are described as serving to chill both free speech and political action through litigation that is both frivolous in nature – and burdensome for those targeted by such lawsuits.
“Though many such suits often prove meritless, they are nonetheless effective at silencing, intimidating, and discouraging dissent,” a press release said.
The proposed legislation would prevent “Goliath triumphing over David,” as Congressman Raskin put it, by those with more money and power essentially abusing the judiciary and wearing down their opponents with huge legal costs and “prolonged invasive discovery.”
If the Free Speech Protection Act becomes law, its sponsors hope to rein in “the rich and powerful” both from draining those with fewer resources of money and in the process silencing people whose political views they consider “incorrect.”
Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists are likely to be subjected to meritless SLAPP lawsuits, the lawmakers note in their press release.
The legislative effort, which is supported by a number of civil rights groups, is meant to extend similar state laws to the federal level.
Although two-thirds of US states already restrict SLAPPs, in cases involving First Amendment free speech violations these laws do not apply – since they are tried in federal courts.
And those (ab)using the judicial system to their own end are aware of this and tend to file their SLAPPs in those courts, Institute for Free Speech President David Keating remarked, adding that this is why his group has supported the bipartisan and bicameral proposal.
The Free Speech Protection Act seeks to provide federal courts with a new mechanism to control SLAPPs, including by letting judges act quickly to identify when a SLAPP is going after constitutionally protected speech and dismiss such lawsuits.
Another provision is to prevent those filing SLAPPS from treating the discovery process as a privacy-invasive tool, and lastly, federal judges would be able to deter these lawsuits by awarding attorney fees to the victim – “to reduce the cost burden and deter future exploitation of this tactic.”
The Real Scandal of Hunter‘s Pardon
By Ron Paul | December 9, 2024
Politicians and pundits spent much of last week commenting on President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter for lying on a federal gun purchase form, failing to pay taxes, and any other offenses he may have committed over the past decade. Much of the controversy is because President Biden repeatedly pledged that he would never pardon his son.
Some have also observed that the pardon’s timeline starts the year Hunter Biden joined the board of the Ukraine energy company Burisma. This has led to speculation that President Biden is trying to block any investigation into links between his son’s business dealings and President Biden’s Ukraine policy.
What has not been widely discussed is the fact that Hunter Biden may be the only American President Biden has pardoned for violating unconstitutional federal gun and drug laws.
Hunter Biden was convicted of lying on federal Form 4473. This is a form Americans must fill out to get federal government “permission” to purchase a firearm. Specifically, Hunter Biden gave a false answer to the question, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
The Second Amendment forbids the federal government from limiting the ability of any American to exercise his natural right to own a firearm. Furthermore, federal drug laws are themselves unconstitutional.
The Constitution only creates three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. All other crimes are under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. So, the required use of this form is a constitutional violation of the rights of Hunter Biden and all other Americans who are subjected to it when they seek to obtain a gun.
Form 4473 warns Americans that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” Thus, someone could be prevented from exercising his Second Amendment right because of his activities that are perfectly legal in his state. This turns federalism on its head.
Hunter Biden was also convicted of, and pardoned for, tax evasion and the filing of fraudulent tax returns. It is hard for anyone who values liberty to get upset at those who violate the tax laws since the income tax is a form of theft by the government of people’s hard-earned income.
An outrage of Hunter Biden’s pardon is President Biden’s hypocrisy. When he served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s, then-Senator Biden played a major role in getting through Congress the Brady Law that created the federal gun purchase background check system that Hunter Biden was convicted of violating. Senator Biden also was a leading drug warrior who led the fight to pass the 1994 crime bill and was a champion of mandatory minimums and other infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on drugs. President Biden also supported hiring more IRS agents to squeeze more money from taxpayers.
Then-Senator Biden wrote large parts of the PATRIOT Act. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden also led the effort to pass the unconstitutional (and disastrous) “authorization for use of military force” against Iraq.
President Biden should spend his last month in office pardoning more Americans for violations of unconstitutional drug and gun laws. This would serve as a small gesture of atonement for a political career spent advocating policies destructive of peace, prosperity, and liberty.
Romania makes dangerous step to prevent victory of anti-war presidential candidate
By Lucas Leiroz – December 9, 2024
Western narratives about “democracy” and “electoral transparency” seem to be mere rhetoric – conveniently used against enemies and ignored when Western countries violate such “rules”. Recently, Romania illegally and unjustifiably annulled the results of its presidential elections just to prevent an anti-EU candidate from winning. This case clearly shows how European countries are willing to take any kind of action to prevent political changes that favor multipolarity.
The Romanian Constitutional Court illegally interfered in the country’s electoral process by annulling the results of the first round of the presidential elections. Thus, independent candidate Calin Georgescu, who surprisingly won the race against his EU-backed opponents, was harmed for maintaining a critical stance of opposition against Romania’s alignment with the West.
Georgescu is accused of receiving Russian support in his electoral campaign. He is a well-known critic of NATO and the EU, and is absolutely against Romania’s involvement in the conflict with Russia. He promises to reverse the Romanian government’s aid measures to Ukraine, and maintains a strong position against the EU-sponsored “woke” cultural agenda. As a religious nationalist, he also wants to establish peaceful ties with Russia to pacify relations between the countries with Orthodox Christian majorities, which has made him particularly popular among the Romanian people, who remain largely Christian despite Western cultural pressure.
For this reason, Georgescu is called “pro-Russian” and his opponents invent unsubstantiated narratives against him, claiming that Moscow finances his political projects and his electoral campaign. Russian authorities have already spoken out on the case, denying any connection, but that was not enough to stop Romanian judges from nullifying his first-round election victory, labeling him a “foreign agent.”
Georgescu won nearly 23% of the vote in the first round. He was scheduled to face leftist-liberal candidate Elena Lasconi, who won 19% of the vote, in a runoff election. Instead of respecting the will of the people, the Constitutional Court, which is certainly controlled by pro-NATO and pro-EU judges, simply nullified the electoral process and set a new election day for a later date.
The right-wing candidate reacted to the decision by saying that the judges made a coup d’etat. According to him, democracy and the rule of law have been suspended in Romania, and there is no longer any respect for the country’s legal order. Georgescu described the Romanian judicial system as corrupt, strongly condemning the unfair accusations made against him.
“Essentially, this is a formalized coup d’etat. The rule of law is in an induced coma, and justice subordinated to political orders has practically lost its essence. It is no longer justice, it obeys the orders (…) The corrupt system in Romania showed its true face by making a pact with the devil,” he said.
In fact, no evidence has been provided to justify the claim that Georgescu is supported by Russia. If such support existed, it would certainly be easy to provide personal data to prove it, but nothing has been done, which indicates that the allegations are completely baseless. This shows that for the Romanian electoral legal system, a fair lawsuit is not important, and any maneuver to prevent a dissident candidate from coming to power is valid.
Even if Georgescu did receive support from Moscow, this should not be a problem, since it is common for candidates to be supported by foreign countries – as in Romania itself, where Georgescu’s opponents are largely supported by the EU. In a truly democratic system, all candidates should be free to make their own choices regarding international and diplomatic alliances. However, it seems that Romania is not really a democracy.
To prevent the rise of an anti-NATO political wave, the Atlantic alliance is encouraging the rise of authoritarian regimes in Europe. NATO knows that the war against Russia is unpopular and that ordinary citizens want support for Ukraine to end. Therefore, only dictatorships can sustain the alliance’s war efforts – which is why, for example, Macron recently banned the French parliament and now Romania has annulled its presidential elections.
It is important to emphasize that Romania is an important logistical hub for supporting Ukraine, in addition to exerting direct influence over Moldova, a NATO proxy country with an ethnic Romanian majority. Losing a presence in Romania would be negative for NATO and the EU, which explains their desperation to prevent Georgescu’s victory.
It remains to be seen how long Western countries will continue to be able to violate the will of their own people without suffering serious consequences and deep crises of legitimacy.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
UK: Student’s Suspension Over Gender-Critical Views Sparks Campus Free Speech Uproar
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
A third-year student at the University of Leeds has found herself at the center of a free speech controversy after being suspended from her role at the university’s student radio station. Connie Shaw, who studies philosophy, ethics, and religion, has drawn attention from campaigners advocating for free expression, who claim her removal is rooted in her views critical of modern gender ideology.
According to The Telegraph, the dispute arose following a complaint to Leeds Student Radio (LSR), where Shaw held the position of head of daytime radio. She oversaw popular programs such as Woman’s Hour and LGBTQ+ Hour. According to the Free Speech Union (FSU), the student union accused the 20-year-old of breaching its code of conduct, alleging she had failed in her “duty of care” and damaged the university’s reputation.
The situation escalated when Shaw received a suspension notice in October. The union cited her social media activity as a central concern but withheld specifics until a meeting on November 6. During this meeting, Shaw learned that the complaint stemmed from a blog post she published on Substack the previous month. The post was hosted by Graham Linehan, a writer known for his outspoken views that are critical of modern gender ideology. In the piece, Shaw critiqued Leeds University’s gender policies, including a fund that provides financial support for trans students to purchase items such as chest binders and makeup.
The blog also scrutinized a feminist philosophy essay question Shaw encountered during her studies, which asked whether subordination is essential to being a woman. Describing the question as problematic, she argued it implied that systemic oppression defines womanhood. Additionally, Shaw’s podcast, linked in the post, featured interviews with both Linehan and Charlie Bentley-Astor, a notable detransitioner. These interviews, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival in London, were cited as contributing factors in the complaint.
In late November, the Leeds University Union (LUU) determined that Shaw’s actions had brought the station into disrepute, resulting in her suspension from the LSR committee. To regain her position, she was reportedly instructed to issue a written apology and complete an e-learning course.
The FSU, acting on Shaw’s behalf, has challenged the union’s decision, alleging it constitutes direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which protects gender-critical beliefs. Toby Young, FSU’s general secretary, criticized the investigation’s process, describing it as flawed and biased. “The natural inference from their approach was that Shaw’s beliefs alone were sufficient to tarnish the station’s reputation,” he said.
Young further denounced what he called “hostile questioning” during the inquiry, including being asked how she could foster inclusivity at LSR when her views might discomfort others. He argued that the complaints against her were exaggerated and lacked concrete detail.
Shaw herself expressed frustration at the outcome, pointing to what she views as hypocrisy. “It is ironic that LSR promoted a freedom of speech event – the Battle of Ideas – only for me to face repercussions for interviews conducted there and for exercising my legal right to free speech,” she said.
The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about freedom of expression on university campuses. The FSU has vowed to support Shaw through an appeal process and potential legal claims, calling for the investigation to be overturned. Meanwhile, the LUU has maintained its commitment to inclusivity but has declined further comments due to the ongoing appeal.
This case highlights the tension between fostering an inclusive environment and protecting individuals’ rights to express contentious views, raising critical questions about the boundaries of free speech in academic settings.
US, Canadian universities hire Israeli firms to curb pro-Palestinian protests, report says
Press TV – December 7, 2024
A report by an Israeli newspaper reveals that several universities across the United States and Canada have engaged Israeli-linked security firms to suppress pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses.
The report by the Yedioth Ahronoth highlights that following Donald Trump’s election campaign, during which he promised to penalize institutions that didn’t adequately control “radicals and Hamas supporters,” many universities sought Israeli security companies for assistance in managing protest activities.
The City University of New York (CUNY), a significant site for protests in the past year, has recently signed a contract worth $4 million with Strategy Security Corp., owned by Yosef Sordi, a former New York City police officer with professional training in Israel.
The report also draws attention to the involvement of Israeli security firms in violent confrontations that occurred in May at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Protesters stated that personnel from Magen Am, a company with Israeli military ties, were aggressive in their actions during the demonstrations.
UCLA confirmed that the firm worked alongside local police to manage the protests, with the company receiving $1 million in return.
Additionally, the Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), which has a specific division in Israel, has been contracted to oversee demonstrations at various US university campuses.
In Montreal, Concordia University has engaged two Israeli security firms: Percentage International and Moshav Security Consulting.
In April, Columbia University students and faculty staged a sit-in opposing Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, demanding the administration cut ties with Israeli universities and divest from companies supporting the occupation.
As police intervened and arrested dozens of protesters at US universities, similar demonstrations spread to universities across France, the UK, Germany, Canada, and India, as protesters expressed solidarity with their American counterparts and called for an end to the war on Gaza.
Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza has killed over 44,664 people, most of them women and children, since October 7, 2023.
Last month, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former war minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice due to its genocidal campaign in Gaza.
France is a perfect example of centrist elites wrecking the West
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | December 7, 2024
It is almost as if some EU capitals have a tenacious death wish. After Berlin’s amazing and ongoing self-Morgenthauing act of industrial suicide for the greater glory of America’s NATO and Zelensky’s Ukraine, Paris is now self-Waterlooing. As France’s newly-discharged prime minister Michel Barnier almost correctly noted, the “country is going through a profound crisis.”
‘Almost,’ because it’s not ’going through’, but stuck in it.
Meanwhile, the man who set this train to nowhere in motion with a hissy fit of an early-election at the beginning of June, former investment-banker-turned-president Emmanuel Macron, won’t quit, although he’s politically bankrupt. He also keeps blaming everyone but himself, while promising to provide “stability.”
The president’s obstinacy would be funny if it weren’t so tragic for France. As French newspaper Libération has put it, “how can you embody stability when you’re the one who’s produced the chaos?” But then, to be fair to the former Wunderkind of Centrism, for the West’s “elites” and their offspring, too (Hi there, Crack Hunter, lawless son of Genocide Joe!), taking responsibility is just so passé. More importantly, Macron’s personal if humungous failure as a politician and, worse, national leader is not the whole story.
Despite the broad powers of the French presidency and Macron’s narcissistic tendency to over-estimate his own significance, he has been a devastating catalyst, an unwitting tool of history rather than a mover-and-shaker in his own right. This, not to be misunderstood, does not absolve him of guilt. It simply means that focusing on him is much less interesting than he himself believes.
Instead, the deep crisis that has come to a head with parliament’s sacking, on December 4, of Barnier and his short-lived minority government, is the result of two large social forces, and one overarching trend that pervades in the West and deserves the label of historic.
Regarding the social forces, on one side, there are economic stagnation and budgetary stress, and, on the other, a pervasive loss of popular legitimacy for politics-as-usual and, in addition, of basic trust and confidence. Concerning the historic trend, we’ll get to that in a moment.
As for the economics of the mess, just consider a few basic facts and key indicators: The trigger for the government collapse was, as recently in Germany, a crisis of state finances: Barnier’s short-lived minority government fell over its attempt to push through a budget for 2025. The deficit for this year, 2024, is forecast to reach at least 6% of GDP, which is, of course, twice the official EU limit of 3%.
For comparison, the Russian Finance Ministry estimates that country’s 2024 budget deficit to reach just over 1%. Even accounting for potential bias on the side of a government agency, the difference is striking, especially if you consider that Moscow has been the target of unprecedented Western economic warfare and has also had to mobilize to defeat the West in the proxy war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, France’s economic growth is at barely 1%, according The Economist and, according to the European Commission, will slow to 0.8% in 2025. Economists say that’s too optimistic. In other words, there is no “growth,” only stagnation-by-another-name. French business struggles with high energy prices, high interest rates, and waning consumer confidence. Major French firms are cutting jobs by the thousands, bankruptcies “are soaring,” and there is a cost-of-living crisis, again similar to the other Sick Man of the EU, Germany. Long gone seem the days when a Franco-German duo was supposed to be the EU’s beating heart.
To round off the misery, Paris sits on sovereign debt totaling almost €3.3 trillion, equivalent to over 110% of GDP. What the EU allows officially is 60%. That’s a situation The Economist calls “alarming,” with fine English understatement. In reality, “alarming” was yesterday. Paris is now at la-merde-is-hitting-the-proverbial-fan level. Just consult the international ratings agencies: Already at the end of October, Moody’s downgraded France’s credit outlook from “stable” to “negative”; now, the agency has reacted to the budding crisis-on-top-of-a-crisis by highlighting France’s political deadlock and concluding that the probability of consolidating its public finances has been reduced. Some French observers at least are wondering if a full credit rating downgrade is coming. And what about Standard and Poor’s and Fitch, Moody’s competitors? Pardon my French, but just don’t ask.
It’s a dismal picture on the economic front but wait till you see the politics and the national mood!
In the most immediate terms, Macron’s reckless early-election gamble in the summer and his devious and undemocratic maneuvering to keep out the victorious Left after his party’s predictable trouncing, has left France, in effect, ungovernable. Barnier’s predictable failure makes no difference to that fact. Fresh parliamentary elections, once again, would probably not help either. And anyhow, they are ruled out by the constitution before next summer.
Macron will now try out yet another prime minister, number six since he became president. That is a high attrition rate: In 7 years, the would-be embodiment of “institutional stability” has gone through as many heads of government as De Gaulle in 19 years.
It’s also an accelerating attrition rate: Macron’s prime ministers get used up ever faster. The future will show if this trend can be broken. If so, then not because of but despite the president’s baneful influence. As a French commentator noted, he won’t provide a solution, but he can still cause a lot of problems.
There are good reasons for declaring this moment the death of Macronism. Its core project of leaving behind the politics of left and right and replacing them with a combination of Centrism and a “Jupiterian” (Macron’s own, early term) personality cult now lies in tatters.
Specifically, Macronism’s claim to, at the very least, stave off the populist right of Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) is a sad joke: No matter what you think about the RN, there is no doubt that its power has never been as great as now, and its chances of capturing the presidency, with or without Marine Le Pen in the lead, have never been better.
Macron has become the Biden of France: in both cases, while building their rule on a promise to keep out right-populist challengers, the two presidents’ incompetence and egotism has facilitated the rise of those challengers.
And how do the French feel in the midst of all of this? Spoiler alert: Not grand. According to French newspaper Le Monde’s summary of comprehensive polling by Ipsos, France is a “country anxious and discontent, hit by a political crisis,” and bereft of trust in its “political personnel and institutions.” In terms of their individual experiences, only 50% are content, 70% believe that the conditions of their life are “less and less favorable,” and 55% say they find it hard to make ends meet.
Regarding their country as a whole, a whopping 87% consider it in decline, which is 18% worse than when Macron was elected for the first time in 2017: National slow claps for “Jupiter.” But the rest of the political elites don’t look much better: Solid, even preponderant majorities consider them “corrupt” (63%), “not representative” (78%), and out for their own, personal good (83%).
In principle, there’s a difference between being miserable and being afraid. But the two states of mind go together really well, too: Almost all of the French (92%) have a bad feeling they are living in a “violent society”, and almost a third think “very violent” is the more precise term. You may say things could hardly get worse. Yet the French firmly believe they can: 89% see violence on the rise, and the majority of those respondents (61%) think it is rising “a lot.”
In sum: A selfish boss from hell (who could fire himself but swears he won’t), no functioning government, a tanking economy, and a mood like there’s no tomorrow. How did that happen to the “Grande Nation”? This is where we get back to the third factor mentioned above: the overarching historic trend. Let’s zoom out from unhappy France and small-minded, selfish Macron, and what we are seeing is an exemplary case of Centrism ruining a country.
True, you would never guess that if you relied on, for instance, The Economist. There, the same old, tired, and dim story is relentlessly told: How a heroic “center” and its stalwart defenders are resisting (or not so much) dastardly attacks from the “populists” and “extremists.” It’s an epic battle of light and darkness, Hobbits and Orcs, almost as if lifted straight from a fantasy novel. It even features glorious last stands: For the New York Times, Britain’s Keir Starmer, “one of the last centrist leaders on the global stage” is “trying to fight populism from the lonely center.” “Remember the Alamo,” I guess.
And yet, look at the real world: Clinton, Biden, Harris, Scholz, Macron, to name only a few – What do they all have in common? They stand for the failed, rejected project of elitist Centrism, dragging down their countries. For a stubborn, snobbish, and manipulative style of politics, complete with lawfare, mass media campaigns of calumny and disinformation, incipient authoritarianism and police-state methods, a dead-end foreign policy of blaming others (Russia and China most of all) for their countries’ problems and decline, and a resolute surrender to the forces of “the market,” which, here, is simply code for globalized capitalist interests.
It is a project that systematically confuses securing the power and privileges of traditional elites with national stability and welfare. Last but not least, its practitioners stand for an aggressive hubris that routinely derides and demonizes all challengers as beyond the pale of propriety. None of this has anything to do with democracy. On the contrary, as Macron’s handling of elections has illustrated, this is a policy of preventing popular participation and empowerment from below. Centrism is in deep crisis. That much, dear Economist, is true. It should be and only has itself to blame.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Prospective German chancellor calls for end to arming Kiev
Alice Weidel speaks to reporters at an AfD convention in Berlin, Germany, December 7, 2024 © Getty Images / Maryam Majd
RT | December 7, 2024
The co-leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Alice Weidel, has said that she will oppose any arms supplies to Ukraine if she succeeds Olaf Scholz as the country’s chancellor.
AfD nominated Weidel as its candidate for the post on Saturday, in the party’s first bid for the chancellery in its 11-year history. It has steadily risen in popularity since its founding in 2013, and is currently Germany’s second-strongest political force.
Speaking to reporters after the nomination, Weidel promised to introduce drastic immigration restrictions, to roll back Scholz’ climate policies, and to cut off military aid to Ukraine.
”We want peace in Ukraine,” the 45-year-old said. “We do not want any arms supplies, we do not want any tanks, we do not want any missiles. We do not want Taurus for Ukraine, which would make Germany a party to the war,” she added, referring to a type of German-made cruise missile that would require German military personnel to be deployed to Ukraine to operate.
The AfD, Weidel declared, is a “peace party.”
Scholz, along with his Green and Free Democrat coalition partners, overturned decades of foreign-policy pacifism in 2022 when they decided to supply weapons to the Ukrainian military. Since then, Berlin has sent Kiev almost €17 billion ($17.9 billion) in military, economic, and humanitarian aid, according to government figures. Although initially reluctant to supply heavy weapons, Scholz has authorized the transfer to Ukraine of tanks, artillery guns, anti-air missiles, and armored vehicles.
Before 2022, Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its supply of natural gas. Scholz’ decision to halt Russian energy imports, coupled with his government’s green policies, has led to soaring electricity costs, forcing some of the country’s manufacturing giants – including Volkswagen and BASF – to close plants and lay off workers.
Amid economic decline and disputes within his coalition, the Scholz government collapsed last month. The chancellor is expected to lose a confidence vote in parliament later this month, after which a snap election will likely be held in late February. His center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) is currently polling at around 15%, with AfD at 18% and the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at 32%.
Weidel has little chance of winning the chancellery. Even if the AfD were to emerge as the largest party in February, all of Germany’s other mainstream parties have ruled out entering a coalition with the right-wingers. After a string of regional election wins this year, 113 members of the 733-member Bundestag put forth a motion last month to ban the AfD as a “Nazi party” whose beliefs clash with the German constitution. Most of the lawmakers behind the proposal were Greens, joined by 31 members of the SPD and just six from the CDU.
The Spiralling European Political Crisis: France’s Prime Minister Falls And President Under Pressure to Resign
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – December 7, 2024
The motion of no confidence, voted through on 4 December 2024, has succeeded—a first in France since 1962. All eyes are now on French President Emmanuel Macron, who faces mounting pressure to resign, but has assured that he will not resign.
The French political crisis is evolving into a dramatic and complex challenge, with significant implications for domestic governance, European stability, and global diplomacy. The public largely blames President Macron for the chaos.
In his national TV address on the evening of 5 December, Macron sought to shift the blame onto the “far-right” and “far-left,” accusing them of uniting to create turmoil ahead of the next presidential election—or to force an early one. He firmly rejected the idea of broad “cohabitation” as a solution or of bringing forward the presidential election foreseen for 2027.
Here’s my analysis connecting the key developments and their potential consequences.
A Crisis Born of Discord
Michel Barnier’s short-lived government collapsed in an extraordinary parliamentary alliance between far-right (RN – Marine Le Pen’s National Rally) and the left (New Popular Union, including LFI – France Unbowed led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, considered an extreme-left movement). Their common grievance? A rejection of Barnier’s austere budget proposal, which sought to rein in France’s growing deficit, as well as their initial rejection of Barnier’s nomination as Prime Minister by President Macron, who disregarded the election results that were won by the left.
However, Le Pen was the primary architect behind the government’s downfall.
While intended to address fiscal concerns, the proposal ignited a populist backlash, culminating in a vote of no confidence. This marked the first successful ousting of a French prime minister by parliamentary motion since 1962, underscoring the depth of political fragmentation in the Fifth Republic.
Ripples Across Europe
France’s turmoil arrives at a precarious moment for the European Union. As the bloc’s major army and second-largest economy, its instability reverberates across the continent, weakening political cohesion within the EU and exposing vulnerabilities in the Eurozone. The EU was not used to face a political crisis in such dimensions within its core nations.
Compounding the issue, Germany is preoccupied with its own economic and electoral uncertainties, and Donald Trump’s imminent return to the U.S. presidency introduces a wildcard into global geopolitics.
The crisis in France underscores broader European challenges, from the rise of populism to mounting fiscal pressures, threatening the EU’s ability to maintain a united front in trade negotiations, foreign policy, and economic governance.
The EU has long relied on the leadership of the Franco-German duo. Now, both nations are mired in deep crises—Germany facing a political and economic crossroads, and France grappling with political and fiscal turmoil.
To make matters worse, there is no leader on the horizon like Charles de Gaulle, Willy Brandt, François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, or Angela Merkel—figures we were accustomed to relying on in the past to steer their nations out of such crises.
Macron Under Fire
Having Michel Barnier delivered his resignation, President Emmanuel Macron is under intense pressure to act decisively. Barnier now holds the dubious distinction of being the shortest-serving Prime Minister of the Fifth Republic. Naming a new prime minister quickly is not just a domestic imperative, but also a global one. The reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral this weekend, attended by Trump and other dignitaries, has heightened scrutiny on Macron’s leadership.
While Macron could reappoint Barnier as a caretaker to buy time, doing so risks appearing tone-deaf to growing calls for systemic change. Meanwhile, opposition factions and public sentiment increasingly question Macron’s ability to lead, raising the spectre of a presidential resignation. Macron’s televised address has done little to alter the narrative surrounding his survival—or the prospect of his potential downfall.
The Challenge of Finding a New Prime Minister
Forming a new government in France is proving to be a complex and overwhelming task. The New Popular Front (NFP) Alliance, a coalition of Greens, Socialists, Communists, and the radical left faction, France Unbowed, is the largest group at the French National Assembly.
However, the NFP lacks a sufficient majority to govern outright, forcing them to rely on support from President Macron’s MPs to pass legislation.
A potential candidate for prime minister from the NFP, Lucie Castets, was previously rejected by Macron this summer with fears that she would cancel his neoliberal reforms, such as the pension reform. The president’s decision stemmed from an apparent inability to secure stable majorities, despite the theoretical possibility of combining the NFP’s votes with Macron’s MPs to push through key laws. The new stalemate highlights the deep fractures within French politics and raises questions about whether any coalition can provide the stability needed to navigate the current crisis.
The immediate question is whether Macron can restore a semblance of stability by swiftly appointing a credible prime minister. Failure to do so could embolden opposition forces and deepen calls for his resignation. Beyond France, the crisis tests the EU’s resilience in managing its internal divisions while confronting external pressures, from a menacing Donald Trump to the rising assertiveness of the Global South.
Opportunistic Moves in Brussels
Amid France’s crisis, Brussels may seize the moment to push forward controversial EU initiatives. Chief among them is the Mercosur trade deal, a landmark agreement with Latin American countries that France has staunchly opposed. With French political attention consumed by domestic turmoil, the European Commission might view this as a rare opportunity to sidestep resistance and secure the deal’s approval, sparking further controversy within an already fragile EU.
The coming days will be pivotal in determining whether France and the EU can weather this storm—or whether it will escalate into a broader crisis of governance.
Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics.
Romanian presidential frontrunner claims he’s victim of coup d’etat
RT | December 7, 2024
The invalidation of Romania’s presidential election results by the country’s top court is a formalized coup d’etat, according to independent candidate Calin Georgescu, who clinched a surprise win in the first round last month.
Georgescu outperformed the other candidates in the first round of the election with 22.94%, beating out liberal leftist candidate Elena Lasconi, who received 19.18%, and the country’s Social Democrat Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, who finished third with 19.15%.
On Friday, Romania’s Constitutional Court dismissed Georgescu’s victory, citing a clause in the nation’s laws that emphasizes the need to ensure the correctness and legality of the election. The judiciary body announced that the whole process would be resumed later.
“Essentially, this is a formalized coup d’etat. The rule of law is in an induced coma, and justice subordinated to political orders has practically lost its essence. It is no longer justice, it obeys the orders,” Georgescu, a known critic of Romania’s pro-NATO and pro-Ukraine policy, said on Friday, as cited by Realitatea TV.
The politician also stressed that the court’s decision represents more than a legal controversy, adding that “the corrupt system in Romania showed its true face by making a pact with the devil.”
Georgescu also said that the power of the people is the basis for a democratic state, and the authorities are obliged to respect the results of the national vote. He stated that the current Romanian government is afraid of losing power and facing revelations.
Earlier this week, Western media outlets reported that declassified information from Romania’s intelligence agencies had revealed that the sudden rise of Georgescu in the first round of the election was “not a natural outcome.” According to the claims, his win emerged thanks to a coordinated social media effort, most likely orchestrated by a “state actor” meddling in the candidate’s mostly Tik-Tok-based campaign, helping to get his message out to the voters.
The annulment came amid accusations that Moscow had assisted Georgescu’s campaign, which Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has dismissed as “absolutely groundless.” She said that Romanian elections are carried out in a climate of “an unprecedented surge of anti-Russian hysteria” that is set “to influence the consciousness and will of the country’s citizens.”
Washington, meanwhile, has praised the move. On Friday, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the US reaffirms its “confidence in Romania’s democratic institutions and processes, including investigations into foreign malign influence.”
Preemptive Pardons & Banana Republics
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | December 6, 2024
News that President Biden is contemplating issuing “preemptive pardons” of Dr. Anthony Fauci and others, even though they have not been charged with crimes, reminded me of an African dictator I have long considered to be one of the most colorful and bizarre in the world—namely, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has served as the second President of Equatorial Guinea since 1982, three years after he staged a coup against his uncle.
The Equatorial Guinea constitution provides Obiang sweeping powers, including the right to rule by decree, effectively making his government a legal dictatorship. He has also placed family members in key government positions. In other words, Obiang’s personal preferences in public affairs are the law.
A “preemptive pardon” is not a legal action and has no legal precedent. It is a purely political action that is based on the false proposition that President Trump will, once in office, possess the power to initiate federal investigations without having to adhere to legal procedures and rules of evidence.
Because Democrats and their friends in the media have conditioned millions of Americans to believe that Trump is an inherently defective authoritarian, the Biden Administration may be tempted to believe that it can get away with such a crass political maneuver.
This is a variation of the same gambit the Democrats deployed when they impeached Trump for merely requesting, in July 2019, that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy investigate Joe Biden’s business activities in Ukraine. When this request came to light, Democrats and their friends in the media acted as though the mere request was an outrage, even though there was a mountain of evidence that the Bidens had, since 2014, participated in a spectacularly corrupt scheme in Ukraine for which they had received millions of dollars.
Five years after the Democrats in the House initiated impeachment proceedings against President Trump, President Biden pardoned his son for “offenses Hunter Biden has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024.”
Any “preemptive pardon” issued by President Biden should be viewed as the same species of corrupt political action, and not as a lawful act.
TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States.
TikTok responded with the following statement:
“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”
The Free Speech Shuffle
TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom.
“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China.
ByteDance’s Legal Tango
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold.
But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term.
The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory.
Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator.
Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit.
Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark.
TikTok Fights Back
TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist.
But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else.
A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security
The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides.
Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses.
Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet.
$2 Billion in Data Defenses
TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago.
But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech.
Divestment Drama
Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic.
Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations.
A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits
TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one.
The Clock is Ticking
If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it.
And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise.
This is far from over.
‘An Extraordinary Step’: White House Mulls ‘Preemptive’ Pardon for Fauci
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 6, 2024
Senior aides to President Joe Biden are “conducting a vigorous internal debate” on whether to grant preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci and other current and former public officials whom they fear the incoming administration might target, Politico reported Wednesday.
CNN described the proposed pardons as “an extraordinary step” that would immunize people who have not been formally accused of a crime.
According to Politico, fears that current and former government officials may face inquiries or indictments “accelerated” after President-elect Donald Trump last week nominated Kash Patel to head the FBI. Patel has publicly stated he will pursue Trump’s critics.
Fauci, who according to Politico “became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the Covid-19 pandemic,” did not respond to the outlet’s requests for comment.
Politico reported that White House counsel Ed Siskel is leading deliberations on the matter, and Chief of Staff Jeff Zients is also playing a key role in the discussions.
Zients, formerly the Biden administration’s COVID-19 “czar,” publicly promoted universal COVID-19 vaccination. In 2021, he spoke about “the winter of illness and death for the unvaccinated.”
Attorney Greg Glaser told The Defender, “The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, confirms the President’s power ‘to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.’”
The Huffington Post reported that preemptive presidential pardons “are rare but not unprecedented.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender, “A blanket pardon by President Biden to Fauci would cover his gross violations [of] federal statutes that are too numerous to list” but “could not cover his crimes committed under the criminal laws of the 50 U.S. states.”
“Biden’s ‘get out of jail free’ card only applies to federal prison, not state prison,” Glaser said.
Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., who proposed legislation to ban COVID-19 and mRNA vaccines in Florida, told The Defender, “The use of preemptive pardons appears to be a violation of the Separation of Powers inherent in the U.S. Constitution.”
“The purpose of a pardon is to correct a judicial error or miscarriage of justice, not to preempt judicial action,” Sansone said. “Unless a coconspirator, no president could know the scope of the crimes being pardoned if the person has not been convicted or even charged.”
But according to Glaser, “A federal pardon by Biden cannot be overturned by President Trump or even reversed by Congress without a constitutional amendment to Article II, Section 2 or upon proof that Biden’s pardon was itself unlawful.”
Fauci pardon may help conceal ‘massive scale of criminal wrongdoing’
What would a preemptive pardon for Fauci cover? Criminal defense attorney Rick Jaffe told The Defender that if he were Fauci’s lawyer, he would seek a pardon that “covers all testimony provided to Congress since at least the start of the pandemic.”
The pardon could also include all actions relating to the U.S. government’s funding of gain-of-function research and all actions in which Fauci is alleged to be part of a conspiracy to mislead government officials and the public,” Jaffe said.
“I’d throw in immunity from any action by the federal government to terminate his pension or his royalty payments from pharma, because trying to do that will probably be very high on the new government’s list,” Jaffe added.
Journalist Paul Thacker, formerly a U.S. Senate investigator, told The Defender “Sen. Rand Paul has sent two separate referrals to the Department of Justice to prosecute Fauci” for “lying and/or misleading Congress. Fauci was also caught lying to Congress about his use of private email to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, something that I have reported on, as has The New York Post,” Thacker said.
Brianne Dressen, a participant in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials who was injured by the shot, later took part in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study of vaccine-injured people “that got shot down and hidden.” Dressen told The Defender pardoning Fauci would silence vaccine injury victims. She said:
“The Biden administration silenced true stories of COVID vaccine injuries online at the same time that Fauci was flying COVID vaccine-injured to NIH headquarters to be studied. It’s no surprise Biden may close the loop to protect him.
“This pardon isn’t just about protecting him. Discovery alone would shine a light on things we still don’t know about that happened at the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
“How better to circumvent a process likely to reveal a massive scale of criminal wrongdoing — not just by Dr. Fauci but by layers and layers of his allies in both the government and the private sector — than by preemptively pardoning him?” asked Naomi Wolf, CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity.”
Fauci pardon would show public health decisions ‘beyond the reach of justice’
According to Politico, some congressional Democrats — “though not those seeking pardons themselves” — have engaged in “quiet lobbying” recently in an effort to convince Biden to issue the preemptive pardons.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has come out in favor of Biden issuing preemptive pardons. In an interview with Boston Public Radio last week, Markey cited the precedent of former President Gerald Ford, who granted a preemptive pardon to Richard Nixon before any charges were filed against him following his impeachment.
However, the proposed preemptive pardons have “caused a stir” among other Democrats, “with some saying the move erodes Americans’ faith in the justice system,” the Huffington Post reported. According to Politico, some Democrats are concerned the pardons “could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump’s criticisms.”
“I just haven’t heard a good case to be made for pardoning behavior that hasn’t yet been committed or hasn’t yet been defined,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told USA Today. Referencing his term as Virginia’s governor, Kaine said he used pardon power “in individual cases to grant pardons to people who have been convicted.”
“The idea of just kind of general vague, pardon for unknown activities that haven’t been charged. That is so susceptible to abuse,” Kaine said.
According to CNN, “Attorneys across the political spectrum” have also “raised concerns about blanket pardons.”
“You would create the beginning of a tit for tat where, when any administration is over, you just pardon everybody,” Neil Eggleston, former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told CNN.
According to The Washington Post, “The notion of sweeping preemptive pardons for offenses that have not yet been charged, and may never be, is largely untested.”
Jeffrey Crouch, J.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of politics at American University and expert on presidential pardon powers, told USA Today that a president can grant a pardon as soon as a federal crime is committed, without waiting until someone is charged, tried or convicted.
Crouch said it is unclear whether beneficiaries of such pardons would be admitting guilt by accepting the pardon. Crouch said the Biden administration would be in “uncharted waters” and warned that preemptive pardons “could weaponize clemency” and stray far beyond the intended constitutional use of pardon power.
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, was named one of the “The Disinformation Dozen” by the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2021 — a list subsequently used by the White House to pressure social media platforms to censor those individuals. He told The Defender preemptively pardoning Fauci would be an abuse of power.
He said:
“These were not mere administrative decisions, but profound exercises of authority that reached into the sanctum of personal liberty, that redefined the boundaries of state power and touched the very foundations of how citizens relate to their government.
“A preemptive pardon for Dr. Fauci would pierce the sacred covenant between those who govern and those who consent to be governed — a bond as old as democracy itself. Such an extraordinary shield … would signal that the architects of our most consequential public health decisions stand beyond the reach of justice.”
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.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
Trans agenda is ‘normalization of sadism’ – US author
RT | September 23, 2026
The US Democratic Party has embraced a transgender agenda that amounts to “the normalization of sadism,” author A.J. Rice has said, warning that radical trans policies would return if the party is allowed to regain power.
Speaking to RT’s America First host Scotty Nell Hughes about his new book, ‘The Curse of the Bearded Lady: How the Trans Mafia Whacked American Sanity’, Rice argued that activists have gained significant influence in schools, medicine, and corporate America while people who questioned the agenda have faced pressure to stay silent.
The author described the “trans mafia” as the sprawling network of people and institutions that have helped the movement gain influence. He singled out parts of academia, wealthy backers, and corporations, and stated that providers of transition-related treatment also have a financial incentive to keep young people in their care indefinitely.
Rice argued that the consequences of these policies ultimately fall on children who are being drawn toward gender-affirming medical treatments and on girls who are expected to share locker rooms or compete in sports with biological males.
He noted that while voters rejected the Democrats’ approach to gender in 2024, the party, which has been “captured by madness,” has since only doubled down and is seeking what is effectively “the normalization of sadism.” … Full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- French-Lebanese man files war crimes complaint over Israeli attacks
- Mahan Air Flight Lands in China Despite US Threat against Iranian Airlines
- US eyes $10bn fund to rebuild war-battered Gulf infrastructure
- Trump meets Rodríguez near Maduro’s prison as Venezuela’s oil flows to US
- Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
- Iran FM meets with US envoy on UN meeting’s sidelines at American side’s insistence: Report
- Qatar PM calls for Gulf security framework with Iran, says war must be ‘wake-up call’
- China condemns US extortion of Iranian airlines, rejects Washington’s ‘illegal’ sanctions threats
- Italy to move military personnel from Taif base after missile strike
- Finland’s Stubb tells European leaders to calm down
- If Americans Knew
- Winter could turn Gaza’s treacherous, war-damaged buildings into deathtraps
- Majority of Democratic Voters Want to Prosecute Both Biden and Trump Administration Officials Over Gaza
- As Gaza languishes, world leaders gather at the UN – Daily Update
- Sanctions are collective punishment: immoral and self-defeating
- Phosphorus Munitions Fired by Israel Burn Groves, Orchards in Southern Lebanon
- Israel Carries Out New Ceasefire Violations Across Gaza
- AI – Emphasis on the ‘I’: Israel Is Funding AI Chatbot Propaganda
- Israel Blocking Hundreds of Wheelchairs for Injured Children From Entering Gaza
- Israel Is Expanding and Upgrading Compounds for Palestinian Militias in Gaza
- The Palestinian-American Residents of This West Bank Town Are Wondering: Where Is Trump?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
