Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

American Academy of Pediatrics Hit With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | Focal Points | January 21, 2026

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been treated like an untouchable authority on child health — the gold standard that parents, doctors, schools, and lawmakers were told to trust without question. But today, that image collapses. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and multiple plaintiffs just filed a federal lawsuit alleging the AAP spent decades running a racketeering operation that sold parents false safety assurances about the childhood vaccine schedule.

This isn’t another “vaccine debate” lawsuit. It’s a RICO fraud case—the same legal weapon used against organized crime and the tobacco industry. The allegation is blunt and devastating: the AAP allegedly manufactured false certainty around vaccine schedule safety, shut down legitimate scientific scrutiny, and promoted sweeping assurances that were never validated through rigorous real-world safety testing—while operating within a system shaped by vaccine-manufacturer funding and financial incentives tied to high pediatric vaccination rates.

One of the most explosive points in the complaint is what it forces into the open. The cumulative childhood schedule has never been safety-tested the way any reasonable parent would assume it has. The lawsuit points to Institute of Medicine findings from 2002 and 2013 calling for more research and acknowledging the lack of proper vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparisons. Yet the AAP continued portraying the schedule as thoroughly tested and unquestionably safe, shaping pediatric care nationwide through repetition, authority, and pressure—not proof.

The complaint also describes what parents have learned the hard way. This system doesn’t merely recommend vaccines. It demands compliance. Physicians who questioned the schedule or deviated from AAP protocols were professionally targeted, disciplined, and financially crushed. The message was clear: follow the script, or lose your career.

The lawsuit further argues that the AAP’s public reassurances were built on “theoretical” talking points that became institutional doctrine, including the infamous claim that infants could tolerate an extreme number of vaccines at once. According to the plaintiffs, this wasn’t evidence—it was marketing disguised as medical authority, repeated in clinics to silence questions and keep the assembly line moving.

Then there’s the part that makes it all make sense: money. The complaint highlights conflicts of interest and financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers and aligned institutions. The AAP presents itself as independent and science-first, while operating in a world of corporate sponsorships, incentives, and industry relationships that would be unacceptable in any genuinely transparent public health organization.

This is why the lawsuit matters. It’s not about a single product. It challenges the entire protection racket that has propped up the pediatric vaccine industry for decades. AAP’s model has relied on one rule: the schedule is safe because we say it’s safe—and anyone who demands real proof gets smeared, censored, or destroyed.

The lawsuit seeks financial damages for the families and physicians harmed, demands disclosure of the lack of comprehensive safety testing behind the cumulative schedule, and aims to stop the AAP from making blanket, unqualified claims that the schedule is “safe and effective” as if that question has already been settled.

If this case advances, discovery alone could expose what the public has been denied for decades—and that would be a historic victory for medical transparency, informed consent, and accountability in pediatrics. For years, parents were told to “trust the experts,” while legitimate safety questions were mocked, censored, or punished. Now those questions are headed to the one place the system can’t silence them with talking points: federal court.

Summary

  • CHD and multiple plaintiffs filed a federal RICO lawsuit against the AAP, accusing the organization of long-term fraud and racketeering tied to vaccine safety claims.
  • The lawsuit alleges the AAP violated RICO by engaging in a sustained pattern of deceptive safety messaging about the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, while operating within a financial ecosystem tied to vaccine-manufacturer funding and incentive-driven pediatric vaccination practices.
  • The lawsuit alleges the AAP repeatedly promoted false certainty that the childhood vaccine schedule is thoroughly tested and safe.
  • The complaint highlights the absence of proper vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparisons for cumulative schedule safety, referencing IOM reports calling for more research.
  • Plaintiffs argue the AAP relied on theoretical reassurance (not real-world schedule safety trials) to shut down scrutiny and concerns.
  • The suit includes physicians claiming they suffered professional and economic harm for deviating from AAP vaccine orthodoxy or questioning safety claims.
  • It also includes families alleging severe injury or death following routine vaccination and describes how medical judgment was allegedly overridden by rigid AAP-driven standards.
  • The complaint raises concerns about conflicts of interest, alleging financial ties and aligned incentives undermined the credibility of AAP’s public safety assurances.
  • The lawsuit seeks financial damages, mandatory disclosure about safety-testing gaps, and to stop the AAP from making unqualified vaccine safety claims.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

US sanctions Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad over alleged Hamas links

MEMO | January 23, 2026

The United States has imposed sanctions on the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad, accusing the organisation of supporting Hamas and engaging in deceptive fundraising practices, according to a decision announced on Wednesday.

The sanctions, which also target six charitable organisations operating in the Gaza Strip, include freezing any assets held within the United States and prohibiting US citizens and companies from conducting transactions with the listed entities.

According to the US Treasury Department, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad was “founded and operated by elements linked to Hamas,” claiming that the movement exercises control over the organisation’s strategic and operational activities. The department also cited the presence of individuals within the conference who have previously been placed on US sanctions lists.

Founded in February 2017, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad was launched during a large gathering in Istanbul attended by Palestinians from around 50 countries. The organisation describes itself as a grassroots framework aimed at unifying Palestinians in the diaspora, enhancing their political engagement, and reinforcing their role in the Palestinian national movement.

Based in Lebanon, the conference has organized events and conferences in several countries, including Turkey, and has participated in political and popular initiatives related to the Palestinian cause. Its founders say the conference serves as a coordinating umbrella for hundreds of Palestinian institutions worldwide and stress that it does not seek to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but rather to complement its role.

In response to the US decision, the conference has described itself as an independent and open organisation representing a broad spectrum of Palestinian political affiliations. It rejected the accusations, stating that its activities are public and focus on political advocacy, popular mobilisation, and humanitarian support.

The sanctions decision comes amid heightened US scrutiny of organizations accused of links to Hamas, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report

The Cradle | January 22, 2026

A multi-year investigation by Citizen Lab has found that Jordanian security agencies used Israeli-made Cellebrite phone-extraction technology to pull data from civil society activists and journalists without consent, according to a report published on 22 January.

The researchers said they forensically analyzed four seized-and-returned phones and reviewed three court records tied to prosecutions under Jordan’s 2023 Cybercrime Law, with cases spanning late-2023 to mid-2025 during protests in support of Palestinians in Gaza.

Citizen Lab said it identified iOS and Android “Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)” that it attributes “with high confidence” to Cellebrite’s forensic extraction products, describing the work as evidence that authorities extracted data after detentions, arrests, and interrogations by the General Intelligence Department (GID) and the Cybercrime Unit.

In one case, Citizen Lab said a student organizer refused to provide a passcode, and officers “unlocked it using Apple’s biometric face ID by holding it up to the activist’s face,” later returning the device with “their device’s passcode written on a piece of tape stuck to the back of their phone.”

The report ties the practice to Jordan’s tightening online repression, noting that the 2023 law expanded punishments and has been widely used against activists.

In a post on X dated 12 March 2025, Jordan’s Interior Minister Mazin al-Farrayeh wrote, “The most common cases handled daily [by the Cybercrime Unit] involve hate speech and inciting division and strife on social media … penalties can reach up to three years in prison, a fine of 20,000 dinars [approximately 28,200 USD], or both.”

Citizen Lab report characterizes Cellebrite as a recurring enabler in global rights abuses, arguing that its tools, when handed to opaque security services, become a turnkey mechanism for sweeping, invasive fishing expeditions across private life.

After Citizen Lab and OCCRP wrote to Cellebrite on 29 December 2025 and followed up on 15 January 2026, the company’s PR firm replied with a generic defense, saying “Ethical and lawful use of our technology is paramount … As a matter of policy, we do not comment on specifics.”

Citizen Lab noted that the response “does not deny any of our findings,” and concluded that the Jordanian use of it documented “likely violates international human rights law.”

Alaa al-Fazza, writing for The Cradle, has described Jordan’s 2023 cybercrime law as a sharp turn toward authoritarianism, arguing it uses vague security claims to criminalize dissent, expand censorship powers, and suppress activists as public opposition to normalization with Israel grows.

In a July 2025 report, Middle East Eye reported that Jordan’s General Intelligence Department launched its largest arrest campaign since 1989 by detaining and interrogating hundreds over pro-Palestine activism and Gaza solidarity. The detainees were held without charge amid claims the crackdown was driven by pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Amid the widening crackdown on dissent and pro-Palestine voices, Al Mayadeen reported in December that one of their journalists, Mohammed Faraj, was arbitrarily detained upon arrival in Amman and held for over a week without charge, disclosure of his whereabouts, or official clarification from Jordanian authorities.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Australia Passes New Hate Speech Law, Raising Free Speech Fears

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a broad new legal package targeting hate, antisemitism, and extremism, passing the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 with strong majorities in both chambers.

The bill has several implications regarding free speech.

The House of Representatives approved it 116 Ayes to 7 Noes, and the Senate passed it 38 Ayes to 22 Noes, sending it into law after an expedited process in response to rising public concern about hate-motivated violence.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The government framed the legislation as part of its response to the deadly December terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead and focused debate on enhancing public safety and national unity.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland and other ministers repeatedly described the new framework as needed to strengthen legal tools against violent hate and extremism.

In earlier official statements, Rowland said of the proposal: “Once these laws are passed, they will be the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

Under this new law, a range of conduct tied to hatred or perceived threat can trigger criminal liability, including organizing, supporting, or being involved with groups that authorities designate as engaging in hate-based conduct.

A new framework allows the Australian Federal Police Minister to recommend that such groups be listed as “prohibited hate groups.” Being a member of such a group, recruiting, training, or financially supporting it are offenses with penalties that can extend up to 15 years in prison.

The Bill grants the executive branch power to designate organizations as prohibited hate groups through regulation. This decision is made by the AFP Minister, based on reasonable satisfaction, with advice from intelligence agencies.

Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes any requirement for procedural fairness in this process.

An organization may be listed even if:

  • No criminal conviction has occurred
  • The relevant conduct occurred before the law existed
  • The organization is based outside Australia
  • The evidence relied upon is classified and undisclosed

Once an organization is listed, the consequences are severe. Membership, recruitment, training, funding, or providing support becomes a serious criminal offense carrying lengthy prison terms.

The criminal provisions for hate conduct are built around whether specific public behavior would cause a reasonable person in the target group “to feel intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

This standard can apply even where there is no evidence that anyone actually experienced fear or harm. The definition is tied to subjective perceptions of risk, rather than solely observable incitement to violence.

The Bill expands the “reasonable person” test used in hate-related offenses. Speech may now be criminal if a so-called reasonable person in the targeted group would consider it offensive, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating. Violence or threats of violence are not required.

This standard introduces subjectivity into criminal law. Political speech on immigration, religion, nationalism, or identity frequently causes offense or humiliation to some audiences.

Under this framework, harsh criticism, protest slogans, or satire could attract criminal liability based on emotional impact rather than demonstrable harm.

A democratic society depends on the ability to offend, challenge, and provoke. Criminalizing offense risks sanitizing public debate into only what is officially acceptable.

The legislation also expands the existing ban on “prohibited hate symbols,” creating criminal offenses for displays of banned symbols unless justified on narrow grounds such as religious, academic, journalistic, or artistic use.

While proponents argue this targets conduct that fuels hatred, similar symbolic bans in other jurisdictions such as Germany have often ensnared educational or historical contexts.

The Bill also significantly alters existing offenses relating to prohibited symbols. Previously, exemptions for religious, academic, artistic, or journalistic purposes operated as clear carve-outs. Under the new framework, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proving that their conduct was for a protected purpose and was not contrary to the public interest.

This reversal matters. The presumption shifts from lawful expression to presumed criminality unless the speaker can justify themselves after the fact.

Journalists must demonstrate that they were acting in a professional capacity and that their reporting met an undefined public-interest standard. Artists, educators, and researchers face similar uncertainty.

Such burden-shifting mechanisms are well known to chill speech, particularly in investigative journalism and political commentary where legal certainty is essential.

Migration rules have been significantly altered. The law amplifies the Home Affairs Minister’s powers to refuse entry or cancel visas for non-citizens judged to be associated with extremist groups or hate conduct.

Free speech defenders have warned that the combination of low subjective thresholds and expanded administrative powers creates risks that lawful expression, dissenting views, or controversial speech could be swept into criminal or immigration sanctions.

They argue that this effect stems from how the law equates emotional or perceived intimidation with actionable hate, a departure from frameworks where provable harm or incitement to violence is required.

Taken together, these provisions produce a powerful chilling effect across political communication, journalism, academic inquiry, religious teaching, and civil association.

The cumulative structure of the Bill incentivizes silence, conformity, and disengagement from controversial debate. In a country that relies on an implied, rather than explicit, freedom of political communication, this legislation tests the outer limits of democratic tolerance.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Miami Beach Resident Questioned by Police After Facebook Post Criticizing Mayor Steven Meiner

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

A confrontation over a Facebook comment has drawn attention after two Miami Beach police detectives appeared at a resident’s home to question her about remarks critical of Mayor Steven Meiner.

Raquel Pacheco, who once ran for the Florida Senate as a Democrat and has been openly critical of Meiner, posted a comment on one of his social media updates alleging that the mayor “consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way…”

Shortly afterward, officers arrived at her residence. In a video she recorded, one detective cautioned her that such a statement “could potentially incite somebody to do something radical.”

Police later clarified that the exchange was not tied to any criminal probe, but the encounter has raised concerns about policing free expression.

In a letter addressed to Police Chief Wayne Jones, FIRE described the officers’ actions as “an egregious abuse of power” that “chills the exercise of First Amendment rights and undermines public confidence in the department’s commitment to respecting civil liberties and the United States Constitution.”

Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s director of public advocacy, accused the department of using its authority to discourage lawful speech.

“The purpose of their visit was not to investigate a crime. It had no purpose other than to pressure Pacheco to cease engaging in protected political expression over concern about how others might react to it,” Terr wrote. “This blatant overreach is offensive to the First Amendment.”

FIRE’s letter urged the department to acknowledge publicly that Pacheco’s post is constitutionally protected and to ensure that “officers will never initiate contact with individuals for the purpose of discouraging lawful expression.”

The organization also asked for copies of departmental rules and training materials dealing with police responses to protected expression, adding that the resident’s statement does not fit the legal definition of a “true threat.”

Chief Jones, in a written response, maintained that the detectives acted appropriately and on his directive alone. “At no time did the Mayor or any other official direct me to take action,” he said, adding that his department “is committed to safeguarding residents and visitors while also respecting constitutional rights.”

A police spokesperson confirmed that Meiner’s office had flagged the Facebook comment for review but declined to provide further details.

Requests for additional records, including internal communications between the mayor’s office and the police, remain pending.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Britain’s AI Policing Plan Turns Toward Predictive Surveillance and a Pre-Crime Future

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

Let me take you on a tour of Britain’s future. It’s 2030, there are more surveillance cameras than people, your toaster is reporting your breakfast habits to the Home Office, and police officers are no longer investigating crimes so much as predicting them.

This is Pre-Crime UK, where the weight of the law is used against innocent people that an algorithm suspects may be about to commit a crime.

With a proposal that would make Orwell blush, the British police are testing a hundred new AI systems to figure out which ones can best guess who’s going to commit a crime.

That’s right: guess. Not catch, not prove. Guess. Based on data, assumptions, and probably your internet search history from 2011.

Behind this algorithmic escapade is Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has apparently spent the last few years reading prison blueprints and dystopian fiction, not as a warning about authoritarian surveillance, but as aspiration.

In a jaw-dropping interview with former Prime Minister and Digital ID peddler Tony Blair, she said, with her whole chest: “When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.”

Now, for those not fluent in 18th-century authoritarian architecture, the Panopticon is a prison design where a single guard can watch every inmate, but the inmates never know when they’re being watched. It’s not so much “law and order” as it is “paranoia with plumbing.”

Enter Andy Marsh, the head of the College of Policing and the man now pitching Britain’s very own Minority Report.

According to the Telegraph, he’s proposing a new system that uses predictive analytics to identify and target the top 1,000 most dangerous men in the country. They’re calling it the “V1000 Plan,” which sounds less like a policing strategy and more like a discontinued vacuum cleaner.

“We know the data and case histories tell us that, unfortunately, it’s far from uncommon for these individuals to move from one female victim to another,” said Sir Andy, with the tone of a man about to launch an app.

“So what we want to do is use these predictive tools to take the battle to those individuals… the police are coming after them, and we’re going to lock them up.”

I mean, sure, great headline. Go after predators. But once you start using data models to tell you who might commit a crime, you’re not fighting criminals anymore. You’re fighting probability.

The government, always eager to blow millions on a glorified spreadsheet, is chucking £4 million ($5.39M) at a project to build an “interactive AI-driven map” that will pinpoint where crime might happen. Not where it has happened. Where it might.

It will reportedly predict knife crimes and spot antisocial behavior before it kicks off.

But don’t worry, says the government. This isn’t about watching everyone.

A “source” clarified: “This doesn’t mean watching people who are non-criminals—but she [Mahmood] feels like, if you commit a crime, you sacrifice the right to the kind of liberty the rest of us enjoy.”

That’s not very comforting coming from a government that locks people up over tweets.

Meanwhile, over in Manchester, they’re trying out “AI assistants” for officers dealing with domestic violence.

These robo-cop co-pilots can tell officers what to say, how to file reports, and whether or not to pursue an order. It’s less “serve and protect” and more “ask Jeeves.”

“If you were to spend 24 hours on the shoulder of a sergeant currently, you would be disappointed at the amount of time that the sergeant spends checking and not patrolling, leading and protecting.”

That’s probably true. But is the solution really to strap Siri to their epaulettes and hope for the best?

Still, Mahmood remains upbeat: “AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces,” she told MPs, before adding that it needs to be accurate.

Tell that to Shaun Thompson, not a criminal but an anti-knife crime campaigner, who found himself on the receiving end of the Metropolitan Police’s all-seeing robo-eye. One minute, he’s walking near London Bridge, probably thinking about lunch or how to fix society, and the next minute he’s being yanked aside because the police’s shiny new facial recognition system decided he looked like a wanted man.

He wasn’t. He had done nothing wrong. But the system said otherwise, so naturally, the officers followed orders from their algorithm overlord and detained him.

Thompson was only released after proving who he was, presumably with some documents and a great deal of disbelief. Later, he summed it up perfectly: he was treated as “guilty until proven innocent.”

Mahmood’s upcoming white paper will apparently include guidelines for AI usage. I’m sure all those future wrongful arrests will be much more palatable when they come with a printed PDF.

Here’s the actual problem. Once you normalize the idea that police can monitor everyone, predict crimes, and act preemptively, there’s no clean way back. You’ve turned suspicion into policy. You’ve built a justice system on guesswork. And no amount of shiny dashboards or facial recognition cameras is going to fix the rot at the core.

This isn’t about catching criminals. It’s about control. About making everyone feel watched. That was the true intention of the panopticon. And that isn’t safety; it’s turning the country into one big prison.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd

By Caitlin Johnstone | January 17, 2026

A mentally disabled Australian woman is being prosecuted for antisemitic hate crimes after accidentally pocket-dialing a Jewish nutritionist, resulting in a blank voicemail which caused the nutritionist “immediate fear and nervousness” because she thought some of the background noises in the recording sounded a bit like gunshots.

We’re being told we need more of this. There’s “hate speech” legislation presently in the works to make this worse. Australia’s controversial Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill appears to be explicitly crafted to dramatically increase the scale, frequency and consequences of the exact sort of dynamics we’re seeing in this case, and to eradicate opposition to Israel throughout the nation.

This is how overextended Australia’s freakout over “antisemitism” already is. You can literally just be sitting there not saying or doing anything and still find yourself getting arrested and prosecuted for an antisemitic hate crime. They have the authority to do this presently, under the laws that already exist. The argument for this bill is that our present horrifyingly tyrannical and abusive system is insufficiently authoritarian and tyrannical, and that prosecutors need more power to police speech far more forcefully.

Australians are being asked to trust a system that would take a woman with an intellectual disability to prosecution in a court of law over an accidental butt-dial to a person of Jewish faith with the authority to send people to prison for years over their political speech. And this is happening after we just spent years watching Australian authorities roll out authoritarian measures to stomp out criticism of Israel and quash protests against an active genocide.

This is madness, and it needs to be brought to a screeching halt. Immediately. This entire country has lost its damn mind.

The Bondi attack isn’t the reason, it’s the excuse. All these laws being rolled out to stomp out criticism of Israel in Australia were sought for years before the shooting occurred.

Immediately after the attack last month I tweeted, “Not a lot of info about the Bondi shooting yet but it’s safe to assume it will be used as an excuse to target pro-Palestine activists and further outlaw criticism of Israel in Australia, as has been happening to a greater and greater extent in this country for the last two years.”

They could have proved me wrong, but instead they’ve spent this entire time proving me one hundred percent correct. The frenzied efforts to crush anti-genocide protests and silence speech that is critical of Israel and Zionism in these subsequent weeks has plainly established this.

There is no connection between pro-Palestine demonstrations and the Bondi attack. None. It had nothing to do with Palestinians, and it had nothing to do with anti-genocide demonstrations. It’s a completely made-up claim that Israel’s supporters have been circulating in Australian consciousness through sheer repetition. They’re just pretending to believe it’s true in order to promote the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Israel’s supporters need to use propaganda, deception, censorship and oppression to promote their agendas, because it’s all they have. They don’t have truth. They don’t have arguments. They don’t have morality. All they have is brute force. They are shoving support for Israel and its atrocities down our throats whether we like it or not, and if we refuse what we’re being force-fed they will punish us. That’s the only tool in their toolbox.

This needs to be ferociously opposed. The more Israel and its supporters work to assault our right to oppose their abuses, the more aggressively we need to oppose them. We are no longer fighting against war and genocide in the middle east, we are fighting against an assault on our own civil rights. It’s personal now. They’re coming for us directly.

January 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Scott Ritter says he was ‘de-banked’

RT | January 15, 2026

Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, RT contributor and critic of American foreign policy, has said he has been “de-banked” and that US federal authorities are likely behind his bank’s decision.

Ritter served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. He opposed the 2003 US invasion, arguing that Saddam Hussein’s government did not possess weapons of mass destruction, contrary to Washington’s now-debunked claims. He later became an independent journalist and political commentator and has cooperated with international media, including RT.

On Thursday, Ritter wrote on his website that “today my banking institution of 26 years, Citizens Bank, declared that they were ending their banking relationship with me.”

“My accounts were zeroed out without explanation,” he added.

Ritter said the move may have been a unilateral de-risking decision by Citizens Bank, but that it “does not preclude federal involvement.”

He noted that the “Northern District of New York empaneled a Grand Jury targeting me back in August 2024,” on suspicion of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He believes federal authorities had obtained all his banking information through Grand Jury subpoenas.

“What I am beginning to suspect is that someone in the FBI, fully armed with the totality of my banking transactions… “tipped off” Citizen’s Bank about “suspicious activity” that resulted in Citizen’s Bank issuing a SAR [Suspicious Activity Report],” Ritter wrote.

Ritter said donations he received and subsequent cash withdrawals before his three trips to Russia in 2025 may have triggered the move. He added that he had carried $10,000 in cash each trip because Russia is “disconnected from the Western digital economy.”

According to Ritter, the “purpose of “de-banking” is to harass a targeted individual,” even in the absence of evidence pointing to any criminal activity.

In June 2024, Ritter’s passport was seized by the US government when he attempted to board a flight to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Several months later, FBI agents searched Ritter’s home, which he described as an “act of intimidation” for his journalistic work. Ritter said the agents accused him of working “on behalf of the Russian government,” an allegation he has denied.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive

Australia’s hate law rewrites justice into a guessing game where imagined offense can cost you five years of your life

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 13, 2026

On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.)

The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched.

The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm.

It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment.

The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case.

Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all.

The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person.

Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it.

In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed.

That five-year penalty isn’t for causing harm; it’s for crossing a line no one can quite locate.

The one solid shield in this maze of liability is religion. The offense “does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

Everyone else is left to improvise a defense under the general “good faith” clauses.

The memorandum calls this exemption “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant,” which is legalese for: you better prove your sermon was holy enough.

The government has built a speech hierarchy, placing priests and imams on the top shelf and comedians and columnists in the discount bin.

The Combatting Hate bill reads like the product of a government that wants to be applauded for standing up to bigotry but can’t resist the lure of control.

It recasts expression as a form of potential violence, with guilt determined not by actions or consequences but by how a hypothetical observer might feel.

The Combatting Hate bill takes the already broad category of “prohibited hate symbols” and turns it into a legal booby trap.

Under the amendments, anyone accused of displaying one must now prove their own innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty would now be reversed.

The government boasts that the law “removes the current requirement…for the prosecution to disprove the existence of a legitimate purpose” and instead “reverses the burden of proof to require the defendant to provide evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of the existence of a legitimate purpose for display.”

In plain language, the accused must demonstrate that they had a permitted purpose, such as education or historical context, before prosecutors even have to make their case.

Police can demand the removal of online material and seize physical items.

The likely effect is predictable: artists, academics, and journalists will think twice before touching any material that could be misinterpreted.

The courtroom will not even need to convict. The process itself becomes the punishment.

The bill goes further with a new power to designate “prohibited hate groups.” The Australian Federal Police Minister can create these listings without hearings or due process. The statute leaves no ambiguity: “The AFP Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”

This power does not stop at the Australian border. The listings can reach backward in time and across borders. The bill allows an organization to be blacklisted if it “has advocated (whether or not in Australia)” conduct that qualifies as hateful, even if that conduct “occurred before subsection (1) commences.”

That means a person can be prosecuted for speech or association that was entirely legal when it occurred. The past is no refuge, and geography offers no escape.

Once a group lands on the list, the penalties multiply. According to the government’s own factsheet, “The maximum penalties for these offences range from 7 to 15 years imprisonment.”

Membership can mean seven years. Providing support, training, recruitment, or funding can mean fifteen. The memorandum quietly adds that the Director-General of Security’s advisory role in the process is also exempt from procedural fairness.

The bill presents itself as protection, but is written in language that is surprisingly reckless and shamelessly authoritarian.

It reads like the product of a government comfortable with punishing ideas instead of actions. The text removes the need for evidence of harm, rewrites fear as a legal standard, and shifts the burden of innocence onto the accused.

Its tone is revealing. The clauses are direct and unapologetic, describing censorship powers and reversed burdens as if they were routine administrative steps.

There is no hesitation or recognition of limits, only the steady assumption that control is an acceptable substitute for trust.

This legislation normalizes the management of thought through regulation. The state positions itself as the final arbiter of acceptable speech, using fear as both the metric and the motive.

Once written into law, that kind of authority rarely asks permission to grow.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners

The Cradle | January 13, 2026

Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill that would introduce executions by hanging for Palestinians convicted under military law, according to a report by Haaretz published on 13 January.

The report detailed the proposal and internal objections following its approval in a first Knesset reading in November.

The legislation, formally titled the “death penalty for terrorists” bill, was initiated by Israeli lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party and approved by a vote of 39-16.

It would allow Israeli military courts to impose death sentences without a prosecutor’s request and by a simple majority rather than unanimous verdicts.

Under the proposal, executions would be carried out by hanging and completed within 90 days of a final ruling, following a judge-signed order and under the supervision of the Israel Prison Service.

A designated prison officer would perform the execution, appointed directly by the prison service commissioner.

The bill mandates near-total isolation for prisoners sentenced to death, with visits restricted to authorized personnel and legal consultations limited to visual contact via video calls only, with no possibility of sentence reduction once imposed.

Prison officers and the state would be granted full civil and criminal immunity for carrying out executions.

While execution details would be published on the prison service website, the Freedom of Information Law would not apply, and those involved would remain anonymous.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the vote by handing out sweets and wearing a gold noose pin.

He later said the noose represented “one of the options,” adding that “the electric chair” and “lethal injection” were also possibilities.

Legal advisors to the Knesset’s National Security Committee warned that the bill raises serious constitutional and legal concerns, saying it would apply only to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, creating a separate legal regime and risking violations of international treaties.

Human rights groups condemned the proposal, with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel saying it would grant the state power to carry out “the intentional taking of a human life,” calling it another step toward a “racist legal system” built on selective and oppressive enforcement against Palestinians.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Poland’s EU Digital Services Act Enforcement Bill, Citing Censorship Concerns

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 12, 2026

President Karol Nawrocki has blocked a government proposal meant to enforce the European Union’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), in Poland, arguing that it would turn state regulators into online censors.

His decision halts one of Warsaw’s most significant attempts to bring national law in line with EU digital rules.

“As president, I cannot sign a bill that effectively amounts to administrative censorship,” Nawrocki stated. “A situation in which a government official decides what is permitted on the Internet is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.”

The bill, approved by parliament in November, was presented as a way to protect users from online abuse and falsehoods.

It gave two regulatory bodies, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) and the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), the power to order the removal or blocking of digital content judged to contain criminal threats, child exploitation, hate speech, incitement to suicide, or copyright violations.

The plan also allowed complaints to originate from a wide range of sources, including the police, prosecutors, border guards, or tax authorities. Content authors would have been notified and granted a two-week window to object before any blocking took effect.

Supporters of the proposal pointed to new appeal mechanisms for users who felt wronged by platform decisions, calling the bill a step toward transparency and accountability.

Nawrocki, however, saw the measure differently.

In a detailed explanation posted on the Chancellery’s website, as reported by Notes From Poland, he wrote that the safeguards were superficial: “Instead of real judicial review, an absurd solution has been introduced: an objection to an official’s decision, which citizens must file within 14 days.” He accepted that “the internet poses many threats, especially to children,” but insisted that the government’s draft was “indefensible and simply harmful.”

“The proposed solutions create a system in which ordinary Poles will have to fight the bureaucracy to defend their right to express their opinions. This is unacceptable,” he said, adding that “the state is supposed to guarantee freedom, not restrict it.”

The government, which has often clashed with the president, condemned the veto. Digital affairs minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said Nawrocki’s action would weaken online protection efforts.

Gawkowski argued that the rejected bill would have strengthened user rights, guarded families from “hate” and “misinformation,” and countered the spread of foreign propaganda.

The Polish Media Council also voiced disappointment, warning that the veto “will hinder the fight against online disinformation, especially at a time when almost every day brings new lies from across the eastern border.”

By rejecting the bill, Poland now remains one of several EU countries yet to implement the DSA, exposing it to possible sanctions from Brussels. The European Commission referred Poland and four others to the Court of Justice of the European Union last May over non-compliance.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Australian festival boycotted for excluding Palestinian writer

MEMO | January 12, 2026

Dozens of writers and cultural figures have boycotted the Adelaide Festival in Australia after the organisers excluded Palestinian-Australian academic and writer Randa Abdel-Fattah from the Adelaide Writers’ Week programme, scheduled to take place next month.

The festival removed Abdel-Fattah from the list of participants, despite her taking part in the 2023 edition, where she chaired and joined several sessions and discussions.

The Adelaide Festival includes a wide range of cultural events, such as arts, music, theatre and public talks, with Writers’ Week considered one of its most important annual programmes.

On Thursday, the festival’s board issued a statement saying it was “shocked and saddened by the tragic events in Bondi”, adding that it had informed Abdel-Fattah of its decision not to proceed with her planned appearance. The board justified the move by citing what it described as “cultural sensitivity” at this time.

In response, Randa Abdel-Fattah released a separate statement accusing the festival’s management of “blatant and shameful racism against Palestinians”. She said linking her to the Bondi events was “disgraceful” and argued that the decision stripped her of her humanity and turned her into a target for racist fears simply because she is Palestinian and holds openly stated political views.

Abdel-Fattah also criticised Australian arts and cultural institutions more broadly, accusing them of showing “complete contempt and inhumanity towards Palestinians” since 7 October 2023.

She said: “The only Palestinians they will tolerate are silent and invisible ones.”

So far, 47 participants have withdrawn from the festival in support of Abdel-Fattah, with expectations that more may follow.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »