Democrat Prosecutors Vow to Continue Trying to Jail Trump Allies as Party Floats Shadow Cabinet Idea
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 17.11.2024
Republicans defeated Democratic candidates across the spectrum of electoral contests on November 5, winning the presidency, the House and the Senate. Federal and state lawmakers and governors have drawn up ‘resistance’ plans, while strategists debate the pros and cons of fighting Trump “to the death” versus “playing nice.”
Democratic prosecutors pursuing Donald Trump in his four federal criminal cases reportedly plan to ease off the pressure on the president-elect, but have vowed to continue fiercely pursuing his surrogates and allies, both at the federal and state levels.
“In all likelihood, the state criminal cases will be put on hold during Trump’s presidency. If they try to continue with the prosecutions, or even to impose a stayed sentence, I suspect the decisions will be reversed on appeal. It is even possible that the cases will be dismissed,” Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain wrote in a post-election analysis of Trump’s legal status.
Citing the election interference case, Germain pointed to the Supreme Court’s July ruling that former presidents enjoy “absolute” immunity with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” which includes some protection against criminal prosecution, and said he’s confident that the Supreme Court would “uphold a self-pardon” for Trump, although such pardoning power doesn’t extend to state prosecutions.
For Trump’s allies, however, among them former chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other lawyers and aides, the situation is not as rosy, Washington beltway outlet The Hill said in an analysis.
“In fact, with Trump effectively out of the picture, any limitations the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision would have put on the prosecution – barring certain evidence and causing further delays – are now gone,” the outlet said, paraphrasing Georgia State University law professor Michael Kreis.
Georgia Democrat and District Attorney Fani Willis, pursuing Trump in the Georgia election interference case, has vowed publicly to continue pursuing the president-elect, notwithstanding the election outcome.
“If someone has an indictment in this office, no matter who they are, we continue to pursue those charges,” Willis told local media this week. “I’m here for eight more years, is my plan. So if that’s what it takes for us to get some justice in some cases, we come to work every day, we’ll come to work and look for justice.”
Willis’s status in the Trump case is precarious and presently being decided by a Georgia appeals court after the discovery of her secret romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the top special prosecutor in the case, which a judge earlier ruled to be a sign of “impropriety.”
Arizona AG Kris Mayes has similarly signaled that her office will not be dropping charges in the “fake electors” prosecution against Trump’s allies.
“I have no intention of dropping that case,” she said. “We won’t be cowed. We won’t be intimidated. And patriots across the country must stand up for our Constitution, for what is lawful.”
The judge in that case quit after the discovery of a controversial email which defendants said showed “utter contempt” for Trump, signaling intolerable bias.
Similar charges are facing Trump surrogates in Michigan, having been previously dismissed or challenged in Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.
Resistance’s New Idea: Shadow Cabinet
Trump’s imminent return to the White House with GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress has prompted Democrats to brainstorm strategies on what to do over the next 2-4 years, from “resistance” to his agenda at the state level by governors and local legislatures, to fighting his cabinet picks in the Senate by dividing Republicans against one another. Some strategists, pundits and politicians have also called for selective cooperation with the incoming administration, including picking their battles carefully and looking for “common ground when… circumstances dictate.”
Another idea – floated by Democratic-leaning media and North Carolina Democratic Congressman Wiley Nickel last week, is setting up a “shadow cabinet” – a British political tradition of appointing ‘shadow ministers’ (or in the US case ‘shadow cabinet heads’ for executive branch departments, like the Departments of Defense or Justice), to scrutinize government policy.
The shadow cabinet system presently exists in Commonwealth countries, and a handful of other nations, including Denmark, Italy, Japan, and occasionally, France (where the practice is uncommon).
“We need new ideas,” Nickel said of the initiative. “Democrats have to stop playing defense and start going on offense. It’s not enough to say we’re against Trump and his Project 2025 agenda. We have to say what we’re for, and that’s what’s really behind this idea, to get folks there to counter every cabinet agency, every position that Trump appoints.”
Nickel has called his idea “democracy’s insurance policy,” and indicated that the 26-member shadow cabinet could be appointed by Democratic House and Senate leaders.
“It’s really easy,” the lawmaker assured, floating Senator Adam Schiff as Shadow Attorney General, Representative Adam Smith as Shadow Pentagon chief, Representative Suzan Delbene as Shadow Commerce Secretary, and Representative Rosa Delauro as Shadow Health and Human Service Secretary, to name a few.
In the British tradition, shadow cabinets have no executive power. This means that even if the Democrats manage to set up an American version, they will not be able to implement their own agenda.
Ukrainian MP calling for dialogue with Russia jailed
RT | November 17, 2024
A court in Kiev has placed Ukrainian MP Evgeny Shevchenko in custody for two months after the authorities charged him with treason. Earlier this month, he urged Vladimir Zelensky to engage in dialogue with Russia.
Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Kiev outlawed a number of opposition parties, including Opposition Platform – For Life, the second biggest party in terms of seats in parliament. The authorities cited the opposition’s presumed involvement in subversive activities.
Several individual MPs have similarly been prosecuted.
On Friday, the judge in Shevchenko’s case ruled that the lawmaker would remain behind bars until January 11, 2025. The day before, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) charged him with treason, accusing him of “systematically” spreading pro-Russian narratives in his speeches and online content. The authorities cited Shevchenko’s publications on Telegram and YouTube, describing them as “harming Ukraine’s defense capabilities and information security.”
The prosecutor also noted that since late 2020, the lawmaker traveled dozens of times to neighboring Belarus and met with President Alexander Lukashenko. Kiev does not recognize Lukashenko as the legitimate leader of the country, which is a key ally of Russia.
One visit in April 2021 resulted in Shevchenko being expelled from the ruling Servant of the People parliamentary faction.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Shevchenko suggested that he was being targeted for political reasons. His defense lawyers called the case a hastily prepared concoction of materials.
In a post on Telegram last Thursday, Shevchenko called on Zelensky to “begin dialogue” with Russia. “I understand that you will have to go after that. But the country is more important than personal ambitions,” the lawmakers wrote.
He also offered to travel to Belarus and help mediate the process. The MP warned the Ukrainian leader that if he refuses to negotiate, “you will be forced to go… by those who applauded you yesterday in Western countries.”
Commenting on the suggestion, Andrey Yermak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said that some lawmakers “seem to be confused about issues of national security, national interests, and the future of the country.”
Shevchenko responded by urging Yermak to stop “eliminating” dissenting lawmakers, as “this won’t do Ukraine any good.” In a separate post on Telegram, he called for an end to the “political persecution” of these MPs.
“I wrote a letter to [US President-elect] Donald Trump and [VP-elect] J.D. Vance asking for assistance in putting an end to further authoritarianism, dictatorship, and lawlessness” in Ukraine, he added.
Rationality Triumphs over Fear in Federal Court
By Harvey Risch | Brownstone Institue | November 17, 2024
In a landmark decision in federal court, after a hung jury in the first hearing, the second jury found in favor of fired BART workers who had sued their employer after termination for filing vaccine mandate religious exemption applications. Each of the six plaintiffs in the case was awarded more than $1 million by the jury.
During the second year of the Covid-19 pandemic, governments and employers both private and public across the country instituted vaccine mandates requiring employees to have completed “full vaccination,” typically two doses of the mRNA vaccines, by set dates in fall 2021. Similar vaccine mandates were ordered for military personnel as well as college and university students.
In general, these mandates allowed that mandated individuals could file exemptions based on sincere religious objections or medical necessity, and if these exemptions were granted, employers were then required to seek, in good faith, accommodation positions where the exempted personnel could still work but would pose less of an infection risk to other employees, patients, customers, students etc. This process of exemption and accommodation was covered by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules.
According to the EEOC rules, as interpreted after the Groff v. DeJoy Supreme Court case which was decided in June 2023, employers have been required to establish that employees not satisfying vaccination mandates would create “undue hardship” in order for the employer to terminate the employee. The EEOC rules specify that infection risk, such as that occurring during the Covid-19 pandemic, constitutes a valid hardship risk, but what is in question is whether such risks constitute “undue” hardship as stated in Groff v. DeJoy.
In a sound and rational analysis, the EEOC rules (section L.3) attempt to quantify the degree of infection hardship risk:
“An employer will need to assess undue hardship by considering the particular facts of each situation and will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption the employee’s proposed accommodation would involve. An employer cannot rely on speculative or hypothetical hardship when faced with an employee’s religious objection but, rather, should rely on objective information. Certain common and relevant considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic include, for example, whether the employee requesting a religious accommodation to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement works outdoors or indoors, works in a solitary or group work setting, or has close contact with other employees or members of the public (especially medically vulnerable individuals). Another relevant consideration is the number of employees who are seeking a similar accommodation, i.e., the cumulative cost or burden on the employer.”
These rules provide a framework for evaluating the degree of infection transmission risk posed by employees, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, in a workplace. What is remarkable here is that EEOC used the “does,” not the “can,” criterion. “Does” is rationality; “can” is fear.
In legal cases at deposition or testimony, science and medical experts are frequently asked questions such as “Doctor, can drug X cause bad event Y?” Medical and science experts live in a mental universe of science theories, and of course, there might be some possible circumstance where drug X could cause bad outcome Y. We were taught in medical school, “Never say never.”
The question however is not really asking whether, in theory, drug X could cause bad outcome Y, but rather whether here on planet Earth, such outcomes actually do happen. The opposing attorney is trying to get a sound bite from the expert that the drug is potentially harmful. So while the question as posed asks “could” (or “can”) the drug do damage, the correct answer from the expert is, “In theory, the drug could do this, but in real-life applications, the drug does not do this.” “Does” conveys a quantitative estimate of how often things actually happen, whereas “can” is a theoretical question with major fear potential.
In 2021, it was not just the general public that had been propagandized to excessive fear of Covid-19, but companies and governments were also made to be afraid. Thus, many company decisions were based on fear, on supposed “worst-case scenarios,” that disregarded the range of effects of the decisions in favor of supposed benefits for reduced risks of Covid infection transmission.
Compounding this problem, the vaccines did appear to reduce risks of Covid transmission during the first half of 2021, giving employers empirical evidence to support their thinking about vaccine mandates.
However, by the time the vaccine mandates were implemented in the fall of 2021, the widespread Delta strain of Covid-19 infection had largely escaped vaccine immunity (remember the first booster campaign?) and thus the evidence of Covid-19 transmission risk reduction for “full vaccination” required by the mandates was virtually gone—except that medical experts for the defendants in the BART and other cases were still using the earlier stale evidence to support their scientific assertions. This also violates EEOC rules which require the use of the latest scientific evidence.
Thus in retrospect, as I had discussed in my testimony as an epidemiology expert for plaintiffs in the BART case, the jury appears to have eventually apprised the circumstances accurately: the small numbers of religiously exempt employees did not pose a major infection transmission risk in comparison to the large BART workforce or to the even larger BART ridership—patrons who themselves were not required to be vaccinated in order to ride the BART trains. In the case’s initial verdict form, the jury unanimously concluded, for each of the six plaintiffs, in response to the question, “Has BART proven that the plaintiff could not be reasonably accommodated without undue hardship?” they wrote, “NO, not proven by BART.”
That is, the fact that such individuals “could” pose infection transmission risks, did not establish an undue hazard that they “would” pose inordinate infection transmission risks. According to the rules laid out by the EEOC, rationality prevailed over fear in this case. One hopes that this legal precedent informs the many similar cases pending, of employees, students, and service members irrationally and unjustly terminated because of fear, not evidence.
Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.
Elon Musk’s X Sues California Over Deepfake Law Seen as Threat to Free Speech
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | November 16, 2024
Elon Musk’s X has initiated legal action against the state of California, seeking to prevent the enforcement of a new statute mandating that major online platforms either remove or label deepfake election-related content, as a violation of the First Amendment, particularly for its impact on memes and satire.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
The legal challenge was presented in a federal court earlier this week, focusing on legislation designed to curb the influence of artificially altered videos, images, and sounds, collectively known as deepfakes. The legislation is poised to become effective on January 1.
The law in question, Assembly Bill 2655, was signed as part of California’s efforts to safeguard the integrity of the upcoming 2024 US presidential election from the risks posed by technological manipulation. Governor Gavin Newsom, having clashed with Musk following Musk’s sharing of a parody video of Vice President Kamala Harris, aims to mitigate these alleged risks.
The legislation has sparked concerns among tech giants and free speech supporters, who understand that it suppresses user engagement and stifles free discourse and satire under the guise of curbing misinformation.
X’s legal challenge raises critical questions about the boundaries of free speech in the digital age, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for user-generated content. By requiring platforms like X to preemptively label or remove content, the law, as X contends, “will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary.”
“AB 2655 requires large online platforms like X, the platform owned by X Corp. (collectively, the ‘covered platforms’), to remove and alter (with a label) — and to create a reporting mechanism to facilitate the removal and alteration of — certain content about candidates for elective office, elections officials, and elected officials, of which the State of California disapproves and deems to be ‘materially deceptive,’” the complaint reads.
The complaint also states that “this system will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary and will limit the type of ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ ‘debate on public issues’ that core First Amendment protections are designed to ensure.”
It goes on to say, “AB 2655 imposes a prior restraint on speech because it provides, pursuant to Sections 20515(b) and 20516, expedited causes of action under Section 35 of the California Code of Civil Procedure through which political speech can be enjoined before there occurs a ‘final judicial determination’ that the ‘speech is unprotected.’”
Finally, it states, “AB 2655 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, both facially and as-applied to X Corp. AB 2655 imposes a prior restraint on speech that forces platforms to censor only certain election-related content of which the State of California disapproves and also directly and impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally protected content-moderation speech rights of covered social media platforms, like X.”
The implications for satire are particularly severe, as highlighted by the case of the parody Harris videos. Although Governor Newsom’s office insists that AB 2655, also known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, says it exempts parody and satire, the practical application of this exemption is murky at best since it was a parody video that was the impetus for Governor Newsom to push for the introduction of the law.
Pro-Palestine organization enraged by Canadian police raid against activist
Al Mayadeen | November 16, 2024
The Canada Palestine Association strongly condemned the excessive police brutality the Vancouver police exhibited against local pro-Palestine activist Charlotte Kates, a director of the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network.
The Samidoun network was recently blacklisted as a terrorist organization in Canada and the United States. Kates was also previously detained and charged with “hate speech” offenses in May.
The condition for her release was for her not to take part in any “protests, rallies or assemblies” until her court date of October 8, which was triggered by her stance of supporting the right of Palestinians to resist “Israel” and for saying “Long Live October 7” during a rally speech on April 26, the statement wrote.
However, Kates was arrested again on November 14 under claims of a “hate crime investigation” launched by the Vancouver police force, after a search warrant was issued for her home in Victoria Drive.
Kates’ neighbor expressed the neighborhood’s fear as police officers, who arrived at the location in an armored vehicle and full tactical gear, raided her home and broke a window at 9 am on Thursday.
“I’ve lived next to them for three years, and they’re absolutely lovely people. They’re just fighting for rights for people… I don’t think they’re dangerous or terrorists by any means,” another neighbor said.
Is Israel Using Soccer to Export Its Racist Political Model to Europe?
By Mike Whitney • Unz Review • November 15, 2024
For the second time in 8 days, hundreds of Israeli soccer hooligans attacked unidentified fans at a football match in Paris, France. A number of videos circulating on social media show swarms of young men—mostly dressed in black with masks and stocking caps or draped in Israeli flags—pummeling an unknown Frenchman who was beaten to the ground. The extent of his injuries remains unknown.
The skirmishes took place at Thursday’s UEFA Nations League soccer game between France and Israel at the Stade de France which drew the smallest crowd in history due to the threat of hooligan violence. But although the streets of Paris were heavily patrolled by thousands of police and security guards to protect the visiting Israelis, fans of the home team received no such security. When the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans began raining-down blows on their unnamed victims, the police were nowhere to be found.
Some of the videos show terrified fans fleeing an area in the stands that was overrun by a hostile Maccabi mob sprinting across the upper deck while thousands of fans “Booed” loudly from below. The scene seemed more reminiscent of the political street fights that took place in Weimar Germany in the early 1930s than a football match in 2024. The ensuing mayhem was described by analyst Arnaud Bertrand on his Twitter site:
… There was a football match between Israel and France yesterday and this happened at the beginning of the match: a horde of Israeli supporters openly lynched some French supporters in the stands. Macron himself was in attendance at the match to show his commitment to “fighting antisemitism” after Amsterdam…
He made no public comment that I know of on these French supporters getting lynched in front of his eyes. And the police made no reported arrests. Had the reverse been the case, had this been some Israeli supporters getting lynched by a horde of French supporters, you can absolutely bet 100% that he (and all the French media) would have made a huge deal out of it. You cannot overstate the absurdism of it: because we’ve so gaslighted ourselves around “antisemitism” and so distorted the meaning of it, Western countries would literally rather let our their own citizens get lynched on their own soil – in front of the president’s eyes (!) – than face accusations being “antisemitic” in their own definition of the term. @RnaudBertrand (video)
Bertrand is using the term “lynching” in the legal sense as it relates to the “Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act” in 2022… meaning “that the actions of the Israeli supporters would most certainly be considered lynching under US law because they conspired as a mob to cause serious bodily harm based on bias regarding “the actual or perceived religion or national origin” of the person(s) – matching exactly 18 USC §249(a)(5)’s definition requiring conspiracy & serious injury in hate-motivated attacks. @RnaudBertrand
Arnaud is correct in pointing out that President Macron attended the match. Not surprisingly, Macron was joined in his luxury box by two former presidents, the current prime minister and a large portion of France’s political establishment, all of whom stand foursquare behind the violent Zionist thuggery they witnessed in the stands. (Note—Joshua Zarka, Israeli ambassador to Paris, was also at the game, while Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, was in France to supervise the security of Israeli players and fans.)
This is from an article at inews.uk:
Fights broke out at a sparsely attended France–Israel match at the Stade de France in Paris on Thursday night, despite a heavy security presence inside and outside the stadium. Footage on social media showed clashes between home and away fans in the stands, with one clip appearing to show men wearing Israel flags punching and kicking a man on the ground before stewards intervened.
Tensions ran high even before the match with a heavy security operation around the stadium, with 4,000 police and 1,600 civilian security personnel deployed as French authorities sought to avoid a repeat of the violent scenes around a Maccabi Tel Aviv match in Amsterdam last week. Police lines extended more than a kilometer from the stadium with barricades along the streets and helicopters buzzing overhead… Just 13,000 tickets had been sold the day before the game – reportedly the lowest attendance for any home fixture in the history of the French national team…
Israel fans sang songs in support of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) and “free the hostages,” in references to captives held by Hamas in Gaza. Some wore masks and IDF shirts.
Despite Israeli government advice, some Israeli dual nationals were in Paris with Betar, an international right-wing Zionist group. Betar’s social media channels posted an image of members in the French capital holding baseball bats before the game. Fights break out at France-Israel match in Paris despite heavy security, inews.co.uk
Let’s recap:
- No expense was spared to provide security for the Maccabi hooligans, but French fans were beaten in the stands without anyone lifting a finger.
- A mere 13,000 people attended a stadium that holds 80,000, but the match was given the go-ahead regardless.
- The Maccabi mob sang military songs and bellowed racist slogans, but no government official has had the courage to order an inquiry. Note: According to the Middle East Eye, Israeli fans chanted “Free the hostages” and “Hamas, Hamas, we’re fucking you”.)
Readers should take a minute and carefully examine the photo at the top of this article. What do you see?
Do you see a gathering of typical soccer fans dressed in team colors and jerseys waving banners and singing team songs, or do you see a uniformly dressed and deeply threatening throng of black-clad troopers with stocking caps and masks who could—just as easily be conducting a military operation as attending a match of their favorite football team?
Who wears a black mask and a stocking cap to a soccer match? Who chants “Hamas, Hamas, we’re fucking you” at a soccer match?
Was this really a spontaneous get together of pumped-up Maccabi fans expressing their support for their team or a clandestine infiltration of the EU overseen by Israeli intelligence agents on secret assignment?
And be sure to take special note of the author’s last observation:
Despite Israeli government advice, some Israeli dual nationals were in Paris with Betar, an international right-wing Zionist group. Betar’s social media channels posted an image of members in the French capital holding baseball bats before the game.
Betar? The far-right youth movement founded by Vladimir Jabotinsky that fought against the British in Mandatory Palestine and was closely affiliated with the Zionist terrorist organization, the Irgun?
Here’s more from an article at the Middle East Eye:
At the demonstration in Paris, Salah Hamouri, a French-Palestinian lawyer who was deported from Jerusalem by Israel in 2022 after spending many years in prison and is now a member of Urgence Palestine, also accused the French president of sending a political message of support for Israel by attending the match.
“This match and the participation of Macron, Hollande and Sarkozy is part of France’s complicity in the ongoing genocide. It is a diplomatic green light given to the Israeli occupier for all its actions in Palestine and Lebanon and for it to continue its massacres in Palestine and in Lebanon,” he told MEE.
“Today, the low turn-out at the stadium shows that the public opinion in France is in favour of the Palestinian cause, and that the people support the people. It shows that the voice of the Palestinian people has been heard, and that a boycott needs to be implemented.” France-Israel match marked by scuffles, booing and a record-low attendance, Middle East Eye
Summary and Analysis
So, now we’ve seen two significant and politically destabilizing events in less than 10 days both of which took place in European capitals. And in both cases, the violence and racist chants were initiated by Israeli hooligans engaged in actions aimed at intimidating the public. Is there a rational explanation for this sudden uptick in social unrest attributable to Maccabi sports fans?
Of course, it could be just a coincidence linked to the behavior of overzealous sports fans who need to practice more self-restraint. That is one possibility. We cannot exclude another possibility, however, that the violence we have seen in Paris and Amsterdam is not a one-off or merely a case of exuberant young men “letting off a little steam.” We must at least consider the possibility that Israeli powerbrokers have launched this operation—using their assets in the IDF and Mossad—to advance their own strategic agenda consistent with their expansionist Zionist plan.
What we’ve seen is that the incitements on the ground have been coordinated with journalists in the legacy media and with political leaders across the West who have fabricated a narrative of growing antisemitism when, in fact, that storyline is easily debunked by the hundreds of first-person eyewitness accounts and the numerous videos on social media that prove that the sole responsibility for the violence in both cities lies entirely with the Israeli soccer thugs.
But why would political leaders and the media want to create the impression that antisemitism is on the rise? That is the question we must ask ourselves, because that is the narrative we are expected to believe.
IMHO, Israeli leaders understand that the claim of antisemitism is a powerful coercive tool that can be used to pressure parliamentarians to modify the law in ways that benefit one group over the others. Thus, as fears of a new wave of antisemitism intensify, the demand for changes to the law increase. Eventually—as in the case of Israel—equal protection is no longer equal protection. One category of people is placed above the law, while the others are crushed beneath the wheel of “second class citizenship.” This erosion of equal protection—that is attributable to the creation of “special” laws for special people—is the fast-track to apartheid, which is the end of a justice system that treats all people equally and with dignity.
Israel is frequently called an apartheid state because one group of people is treated differently (under the law) than the other. If my theory is correct, then Israeli policymakers are trying to affect those same changes in Europe, which means, they are exporting their racist political model to the continent.
Readers may want to skim the article below and decide for themselves whether this theory has any merit:
Calling for a boycott against Israel is forbidden now – and other measures against anti-Semitism, CNE
The German Bundestag took the clearest decision. Last week, the parliament accepted a resolution from both the government and the Christian Democratic opposition to protect Jewish life in the country. The title of the resolution was “Never again is now”, according to reports from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
According to the text, hatred against Jews and Israel is higher than “decades” since the terror attacks on October 7th 2023. The resolution also explicitly mentions that migrants especially add to this problem…. Concrete measures of the resolution are that no state money can go to organizations that… call for a boycott against Israel. Also, schools will be supported in educating about the Holocaust….
Norway
This Monday, the Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre presented an action plan with 22 measures against hatred against Jews. He invited representatives of the Jewish community to a meeting to discuss the matter. “We would love we did not need an action plan”, the Prime Minister said. “But we know that it is necessary.”
The Holocaust Centre in Norway has reported that anti-Semitism is growing after many years of decrease. “It is not just one budget post that resolves this”, Støre said. “This is about something difficult as attitudes.”…
Netherlands
Also , the Dutch government has been invited to take action against anti-Semitism. On Wednesday, there was a lengthy urgency debate in the Lower House about the incidents in Amsterdam last Friday.
The debate was dominated by Geert Wilders –who is leading the largest party– who presented immigration by Muslims as the basic problem of anti-Semitism.
The Dutch society was shocked by the pogrom-style hunt of Israeli football supporters. Hundreds of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were asked for their passports, beaten and chased. Opposition leader Frans Timmermans expected concrete measures from the government. He advocated for appointing more detectives to track down anti-Semitic offenders and then imposing harsher penalties….
European Parliament
Also, in the European Parliament in Brussels, parties held an urgency debate about anti-Semitism later on Wednesday. The debate was requested by the Dutch MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen from the Reformed SGP party after the shocking events in Amsterdam. The title of the debate is the “deplorable escalation of violence around the football match in the Netherlands and unacceptable attacks on Israeli football fans.”
“Europe is increasingly in the grip of extremist violence and Jew-hatred”, Ruissen said in a written statement. “This must stop as soon as possible.”
Already in October, the EU ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted a declaration that condemned “all forms of anti-Semitism, racism, hatred and discrimination.” Also, in this statement, action in schools was asked to keep the Holocaust in the “collective memory”. Calling for a boycott against Israel is now forbidden, CNE
Everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. There should be no legal carveouts for special people.
Canada’s Censorship Crusade Targets Tech Giants in a Push for “Disinformation” Control
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2024
Over the last four years, Canada’s Liberal government headed by Justin Trudeau got itself heavily aligned with the neighbor to the south on several key but also very contentious issues – such as restrictive Covid measures, various forms of pressure on tech companies, and “disinformation” censorship.
A flurry of controversial bills in Canada, some of which became law, serve to cement this impression.
Now, as President Trump prepares to start his second term in office in the US, Canada’s “orphaned” ruling class continues with the “disinformation” narrative – either as a sign of long-term commitment or looking for new “disinformation partners” elsewhere in the world – or simply as a sign of inertia.
Time will tell, and it will be interesting to see, but for the moment, news out of Canada speaks about a report compiled by the House of Commons Heritage Committee, titled, “Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.”
How about the tactics deployed in Canada – and globally – using all manner of intimidation and subversion to evade citizens’ right to free speech?
Maybe another day, by another ruling coalition.
Right now, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, and Bloc Québécois stand behind statements such as this one, found in the cumbersomely-named report:
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.”
This looks like a call to combine (yet more) censorship with (yet more) deplatforming. And the ones to “fix” things for Canada’s current government are companies behind major social platforms, like Meta and Google.
It’s always fascinating to see that even today, there are still those willing to claim that these giants could possibly “do more” (censorship, that is) than they have been earnestly doing, for years.
But the group of Canada’s MPs behind the report believes so.
They want mechanisms put in place “to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
Does Canadian parliament’s pressure on US tech companies not count as “foreign interference”? Unclear. Another thing that’s unclear – as in, undefined in the report – is what its authors have in mind when they mention “disinformation” and, “conspiracy theories.”
It’s as if these terms have become “art for art’s sake.”
Whatever that may be, Canada’s ruling parliamentarians want specific actions against these undefined phenomena to be enforced by tech companies.
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” reads the document.
Congressional Investigation into Authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Intensifies
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 15, 2024
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.
The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”
The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform.”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1854563397859193136
CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”
Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CCDH included Kennedy, founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), on its list of “The Disinformation Dozen” when he was still chairman of CHD.
“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”
A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.
CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech
Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.
Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”
Ji told The Defender :
“The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals — we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.
“Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.”
Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”
Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology — ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ — coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”
Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”
Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”
“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.
CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation
Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.
Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”
The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” — namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.
This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”
A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.
Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.
CCDH, others flee X in protest
Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”
Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”
Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.
According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”
But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.
“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.
Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”
Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:
“Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.
“Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.”
Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’
According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model — characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties — may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”
In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.
According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.
“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.
Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.
According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”
“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.
“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”
Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.
Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”
“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”
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.
ADL attacks Trump’s attorney general pick
RT | November 15, 2024
The Anti-Defamation League has accused US President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, of “trafficking in anti-Semitism” and called for him to be barred from office.
Trump announced Gaetz’s nomination on Wednesday, declaring that the Florida Republican would end the “partisan weaponization of our justice system.” Gaetz is a hardline conservative and staunch ally of Trump, but his nomination rankled some establishment Republicans and angered the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish advocacy group that typically supports the Democratic Party.
”Rep. Matt Gaetz has a long history of trafficking in anti-Semitism – from explaining his vote against the bipartisan Anti-Semitism Awareness Act by invoking the centuries-old trope that Jews killed Jesus to defending the Great Replacement Theory and inviting a Holocaust denier as his 2018 State of the Union guest,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt wrote on X on Wednesday.
”He should not be appointed to any high office, much less one overseeing the impartial execution of our nation’s laws.”
Greenblatt did not fully explain the examples of Gaetz’s conduct that he cited. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year but never became law, would have criminalized “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism,” including “claims of Jews killing Jesus.” As these claims are repeatedly made in the New Testament of the Bible, Gaetz argued that the bill would have essentially outlawed much of Christianity’s core text.
The so-called ‘Great Replacement Theory’ refers to the idea that white people are slowly being replaced in their own lands by non-white immigrants. While this is often written off by liberals as a racist conspiracy theory, the ratio of whites to other races in the US has steadily been shrinking since the mid-20th century.
In 2021, the ADL condemned former Fox News host Tucker Carlson for claiming that Democrats plan to replace America’s Republican-voting whites with Democrat-voting immigrants. Greenblatt called Carlson’s claims “toxic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic.”
Gaetz weighed in on the controversy, calling the ADL a “racist organization.”
In 2018, Gaetz invited right-wing pundit Charles Johnson to then-President Trump’s State of the Union address on Capitol Hill, prompting another showdown with the ADL. Johnson had previously claimed that 250,000, and not six million, Jews were killed by Nazi Germany during World War II. Gaetz refused to call Johnson a “Holocaust denier,” but said afterwards that he “should’ve vetted him better before inviting him.”
It is unclear how Greenblatt’s complaint will affect Gaetz’s chances of being confirmed by the Senate. While the GOP holds a majority in the upper chamber, four ‘no’ votes from Republicans plus unified opposition from Democrats would sink the Florida lawmaker’s chances of leading the Department of Justice.
Michigan Senate Advances Bill To Impose Fines for Spreading Election “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 14, 2024
A Senate committee in the US state of Michigan has approved Bill 707, which seeks to impose fines on those who, under the proposed legislation’s scope, are found to be spreading election misinformation, and doing that intentionally.
Introduced earlier in the year by Senator Mary Cavanagh, if adopted, this bill would amend the Michigan election law to introduce fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 and qualify “spreading of election disinformation” as an offense.
Disinformation here is defined as statements and misrepresentations that are considered false by the authorities – but the authorities would also have to determine if those statements are made intentionally.
This is not the first time Cavanagh, a Democrat, has tried to push through legislation of this kind; the first attempt happened in 2022.
And it’s not the first time that similar proposals, similarly vaguely worded have seen the light of day in the US these last years; here as well, opponents are wondering who would be “the judge and jury” that declares somebody had intent to spread false information – but also, how the amended bill would be enforced.
“What is the burden of proof here? Is it clear and convincing evidence?,” asked Senator Ed McBroom, a Republican.
Supporters of the new bill – accepted by the Senate’s Elections and Ethics Committee along party lines – say it would “clarify” the state’s existing law dealing with voter intimidation, and adapt it to “modern” intimidation techniques.
Senator Cavanagh said that in addition to “specifying” that an individual (or a company employing them) must know their election-related statements are false, the bill aims to make sure voters in this swing state are aware of a Michigan Supreme Court ruling.
Namely, it decided that the First Amendment protections somehow “do not extend to intentionally false speech about election misinformation,” Cavanagh noted.
Therefore, what was left to do was introduce a new bill that “specifies” (but crucially, opponents think – it actually doesn’t) what passes for “intentionally spreading election disinformation,” and then suppress this speech.
French prosecutor wants a five-year prison term and a ban from running for public office for Le Pen
RT | November 14, 2024
French prosecutors have asked a judge to slap former National Rally party leader Marine Le Pen with a five-year prison term and a ban from running for public office in an embezzlement case.
Le Pen and 24 other current and former members of the right-wing National Rally are accused of using €3 million ($3.3 million) in European Parliament money intended for payments to parliamentary assistants to fund work on internal party business from 2004 to 2016, in violation of EU law. All of the defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
During the proceedings in Paris on Wednesday, the prosecutors argued that Le Pen should receive the harshest punishment as she was a member of the European Parliament and the leader of the National Rally when some of the alleged violations took place. She led the party, which was previously called the National Front, from 2011 to 2021 and still remains a member.
Three years of Le Pen’s sentence would be suspended, and the other two could be served with an electronic bracelet, the prosecutors said. They also asked for her to be fined €300,000 ($316,000).
The prosecutors said the five-year ban on running for office should be implemented immediately, before the defense can appeal the ruling. This means that if found guilty, Le Pen would be disqualified from the presidential election in 2027. During the trial, which began in late September, she announced plans to run for president for the third time.
“It is clear that the only thing the public prosecutors wanted was Marine Le Pen’s exclusion from political life,” Le Pen told reporters after the hearings.
National Rally leader Jordan Bardella, who is not a defendant in the case, took to X to accuse the prosecutors of an “assault on democracy,” saying they are “seeking to persecute and take revenge on Marine Le Pen.”
The prosecutors also requested that the National Rally be fined €2 million, and that all of the others who are accused receive bans from running for public office from one to five years.
The defense will now present its arguments to the judge until the trial concludes on November 27. A verdict is expected in early 2025.
In the 2022 election, Le Pen lost to President Emmanuel Macron in the second round 58.55% to 41.45%.
FBI and Justice Department Anticipate Shake-Up Following Trump’s Comeback
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 12.11.2024
US Justice Department and FBI employees fear widespread “housecleaning” as Donald Trump’s White House return looms, with agency brass reportedly “stunned” and “shell-shocked,” CNN and The Washington Times have reported.
“Let’s hope the housecleaning starts after Trump’s inauguration. The FBI is in desperate need of a change in leadership, one which restores trust and seeks to end the politicization of the agency,” Techno Fog, a nom de plume for a lawyer, blogger and popular legal observer on X, told Sputnik.
The DoJ and FBI’s reaction appears to be strikingly different from what unfolded after Trump’s first win, with the bureau waging Operation Crossfire Hurricane and Operation Crossfire Razor against the newly-elected president and his aides under the false pretext of “collusion with Russia”.
In 2018, former FBI Director James Comey openly bragged about sending two operatives to interrogate Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, in violation of White House legal rules.
“Thankfully, 2024 isn’t 2016,” Techno Fog said. “There is less hysteria both in the press and at the FBI. Trump won’t be caught off-guard this time by a secret operation targeting his administration – the illegal wiretaps, the lies to the FISA court – that we saw in Trump’s first term. And FBI leadership, by now, hopefully knows better. [FBI Director Christopher] Wray isn’t perfect, and he has made plenty of mistakes, but he is not as deceitful and prone to abuse his power as former FBI Director James Comey.”
Nonetheless, Wray is rumored to step down prior to Trump’s inauguration, before the housecleaning begins. “Director Wray never truly sought responsibility for the Russiagate fiasco,” the lawyer remarked. “It seems like Wray has to go.”
Similarly, there won’t be the weaponization of the Justice Department that one saw in 2016, the pundit continued.
“Special Counsel Jack Smith’s ‘election interference’ case against Trump, which is pending in Washington, DC, will likely be dismissed,” Techno Fog said. “Last week, after Trump’s election, Smith asked the court to vacate the briefing schedule so that the Department of Justice could ‘determine the appropriate course going forward’ given the DoJ’s policy to not seek continue the criminal case against a president. The court granted that request and vacated the briefing schedule and all deadlines in the pretrial schedule.”
That doesn’t mean, however, that Trump has become immune to deep state interference, according to the lawyer.
“The deep state may push back on parts of Trump’s policies that it finds disagreeable, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Keep an eye on efforts to subvert Trump’s goal of seeking an end to the Ukraine-Russia war and any limitations to Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO,” the pundit concluded.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
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- 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
- Defeating Russia on battlefield impossible – Fico
- If Americans Knew
- 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?
- Gaza desperately needs tents, wheelchairs, fuel… and everything else (Israel blocks it all) – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- 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
