Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Bill to repeal Patriot Act aims to unwind two decades of unchecked surveillance power

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 9, 2025

US Representative Anna Paulina Luna has introduced a bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, that aims to repeal the Patriot Act, passed in 2001.

The Florida Republican believes that what has in the meantime become the notorious post-9/11 legislation, has been abused by “rogue” intelligence officers to carry out mass surveillance in unlawful ways.

Announcing the bill, Luna mentioned that the Patriot Act has over the last decades been used to interfere in elections, violate innocent Americans’ privacy by spying on them, and even “settle personal scores.”

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

According to the representative, the ability to misuse and abuse the Patriot Act in such a way turned it into a tool for what is known as “the deep state” – whereas her legislative proposal seeks to take away the ability of these permanent power centers to violate the Fourth Amendment, that should protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Like a number of other laws, in particular those supposed to regulate intelligence and broader national security work, on paper, the Patriot Act’s condensed purpose is uncontroversial: to expand law enforcement powers, so as to “enhance the federal government’s efforts to detect and deter acts of terrorism in the United States or against United States’ interests abroad.”

However, on closer inspection – even before the law’s subsequent slide into controversy – it quickly became clear that the expanded powers were too broad and went beyond surveillance itself, to allow for warrantless searches in some cases, more “information sharing,” as well as access to business records.

Critics have been saying that since 2001, the Patriot Act has been turned against Americans themselves, and used as an excuse to subject even those not suspected of any wrongdoing to mass surveillance, all the while sidestepping the necessary guardrails and oversight.

Luna believes this has produced “the most sophisticated, unaccountable surveillance apparatus in the Western world.” And she believes it is necessary to act now to rectify this situation.

“It’s past time to reign in our intelligence agencies and restore the right to privacy. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is using ‘security’ as an excuse to erode your freedom,” the legislator is quoted as saying.

One of Luna’s unlikely – for political and ideological reasons – allies is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been pushing for reforms of the Act, reminding of the fact that when it was first passed in October 2001, many members of Congress admitted to not having read the bill before voting for it.

According to the ACLU, there were “intimations from the Bush administration that those who voted ‘no’ would be held responsible for further (terror) attacks.”

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

I was interrogated in Singapore twice for writing about Palestine

By Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat | MEMO | May 10, 2025

In 2023, I experienced something I never expected in a country like Singapore. Not once, but twice, I was detained and interrogated at Changi Airport—not for breaking any law, not for carrying suspicious items, but for my work as an academic and journalist who writes on Middle Eastern affairs, especially Palestine.

I am an Indonesian citizen. I grew up in Qatar due to my father’s work relocation and completed my high school and undergraduate education there. I later studied in the UK, and between 2022 and 2025, I lived and worked in South Korea as a Research Professor at Busan University of Foreign Studies. My writing has long focused on the politics of the Middle East, with a consistent interest in Palestine—a cause rooted in personal history, moral clarity, and scholarly duty.

In February 2023, my wife and I were in transit in Singapore, flying back to Indonesia from South Korea. We had planned a quiet evening during our overnight layover, including a stop to try halal noodles at Tampines Mall. But instead of a peaceful layover, I was stopped at immigration and taken to a secluded room beside the counter. My wife was told to wait nearby, confused and anxious.

After a short wait, three men approached me, identifying themselves as Singapore’s security officers. They questioned me about my background, my travel history across the Middle East, and most tellingly—my academic and journalistic work. They seized my phone and combed through its contents. One of them referred to me as a “prolific writer,” a remark that made it clear they had done prior research on me before the encounter. Another asked, “Why do you write about the Middle East, especially Palestine?” They also pressed me on my views regarding the situation in the Middle East, suggesting a deeper interest not just in what I had written, but in the perspectives I held.

They never explicitly accused me of wrongdoing. But their fixation on my publications, and on my years living across the Middle East, was a clear indication that my intellectual work had triggered their attention. Later, my wife told me that one officer had directly told her that they were questioning me because of my journalism. After hours of interrogation, I was released and escorted to the departure gate. We never got to try the noodles, and we were told to wait until morning for our connecting flight. Before letting me go, one officer gave a parting warning: “Don’t write about our encounter.”

I’m writing about it now because such intimidation cannot go unchallenged.

Seven months later, in September 2023, it happened again. I was on a flight from Busan to Yogyakarta via Singapore. Because the transfer wasn’t automatic, I had to go through immigration to recheck my bags. The moment my passport was scanned, I was flagged and pulled aside once more. The questioning this time was shorter, but the tone and focus were the same. Even when I returned in the morning to board my next flight, I was flagged again and directed to a “special” immigration counter.

These were not isolated or accidental encounters. My name and passport had clearly been red-flagged.

Ironically, I have professional ties with Singapore itself. I am affiliated with the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore—one of the country’s premier academic institutions on Middle Eastern affairs. But that did not seem to matter to the security officers who questioned me. My intellectual contribution meant nothing in the face of state suspicion.

I have traveled to over 40 countries. Like many Muslims and Middle East-focused researchers, I’ve experienced scrutiny at airports, including once under the UK’s notorious Schedule 7 counter-terror law at Manchester Airport. But to face this kind of treatment in Singapore—a country I had visited multiple times in the past without issue, and the very first country I ever traveled to as a young student—was deeply unsettling.

Singapore’s position on Palestine is telling. While it officially supports a two-state solution and often expresses concern over violence in the region, its foreign policy leans heavily toward Israel. Military cooperation between the two states is robust, including procurement of Israeli-made weaponry. As such, open criticism of Israel or public support for Palestinian rights may be quietly discouraged within Singapore’s tightly controlled public sphere. For foreign nationals like myself, even transiting through the airport can be enough to trigger scrutiny.

This raises critical questions about freedom of expression and academic independence—not just inside Singapore, but across a growing network of states that prioritise geopolitical alliances over basic rights. The chilling effect is real. After these experiences, I now actively avoid flights that transit through Singapore. I decline invitations to speak or participate in events there. I no longer feel safe traveling through a country that punishes intellectual inquiry into the Middle East.

We must ask: what kind of global academic and journalistic space are we creating when states begin punishing people not for what they do, but for what they write? When security officers begin quoting your articles to justify a border interrogation, you know you are not just being profiled—you are being surveilled for thought.

Journalists and scholars must remain vigilant. We must continue to speak truth to power, especially when it concerns oppressed peoples like the Palestinians. It is essential to continue challenging power through critical inquiry and to document the subtle and overt ways in which restrictions on freedom of expression and dissent extend beyond national borders.

Singapore, for its part, must be held accountable. If it wants to remain a respected hub for global transit, business, and academia, it cannot target people based on their views. It cannot pick and choose which intellectual conversations are permissible. And it certainly cannot suppress writing on Palestine without revealing its own complicity in a much larger effort to silence that struggle.

Let us be clear: Palestine is not a taboo. Palestine is not a crime. Writing about it should not make anyone a suspect.

I was told not to write about what happened to me at Changi Airport. But silence is not an option.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kristi Noem’s Authoritarian Take on Travel

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | May 6, 2025

Speaking Tuesday before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations regarding the implementation of REAL ID mandates on travelers, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem displayed succinctly in one sentence her disdain for the right of Americans to travel freely and her support instead for an authoritarian approach to travel.

“But we are telling people that this law will be enforced and it will allow us to know individuals in this country who they are and that they’re authorized to travel,” declared Noem regarding the starting the next day of REAL ID enforcement on travelers. Yet, the right to travel is a fundamental right long recognized by the US government and its courts. And the right to travel is the opposite of travel being allowed only when and to whom the government decides. Further, the right to travel includes the right to travel without showing your papers, updated in the age of mass surveillance to showing your REAL ID. An apparently peaceful person going about his business should be able to continue to do so without having to identify himself to any government agent or provide proof that the government has preapproved his movement from point A to point B. That’s freedom. The Noem approach, in contrast, is authoritarianism.

Adding to the outrageousness of this defense of REAL ID Noem offered is an assertion she made just before in her comments at the subcommittee hearing. Noem said that REAL ID would be imposed on travelers on Wednesday because after years — 17 years in fact — of delay of implementation “the Biden administration chose that it should go into place on May seventh and we intend to follow the law.” Hold on: Noem is really passing the buck to the Biden administration? President Donald Trump and his administration has spent a great amount of effort — via executive orders, regulation changes, and other actions — rescinding many decrees of the Biden administration. Trump and Noem could do the same regarding REAL ID. At a minimum, they could ensure four more years of delay as administration after administration has done before. Instead, they chose to move forward with imposing REAL ID on travelers. They cannot evade any of the responsibility on this. Trump and Noem are choosing to pursue the authoritarian course.

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

WHO Pandemic Agreement ⏤ WHO is really in charge?

By  Dr Lisa Hutchinson | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2025 

On 15 April 2025, as we approached Easter, the not so joyous news broke that member states have now reached an agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement or Treaty, with negotiations expected to be formalized in May (17-26) when each member state can then decide whether or not to sign the agreement. Notably, this Treaty has gone ahead without the inclusion of countries such as Argentina and also the United States. It is now well known that President Trump signed an Executive Order to pull the USA out of the agreement owing to the ‘mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic’ and concerns of China’s ‘inappropriate political influence’. Moreover, federal health officials are also prevented from contributing to talks with WHO, due to concerns it is a harmful organization. So what does this WHO Pandemic Agreement mean for the UK and the rest of the world?

Anne-Claire Amprou, a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, has claimed that this is a “major step forward in protecting populations, the response will be faster, more effective and more equitable” and will bolster “equity and international security.” She continues by noting that “nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or proscribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.” However, many more skeptical followers of the Agreement, such as James Ruguski, indicate that this represents a Framework Convention to usher in a global pharmaceutical power grab dressed up as ‘health equity’ under the guise of ending ‘vaccine apartheid’. The fact that governments worldwide have bypassed normal safety protocols during ‘health emergencies’ sets a dangerous precedent for a totalitarian approach to a one world governance.

The latest agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement refers to pandemic-related health products in response to pandemic emergencies. Of note, these health products include “medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell- and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies”. The agreement continues to elaborate on the fact that a “coordinating financial Mechanism is hereby established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of this Agreement”. In other words, this will expand the capacities around pandemic prevention and preparedness and response using the above mentioned coordinated financial mechanism to serve the implementation of this Agreement. James Roguski defines the acronym PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) in reality as a Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex!

In his Substack, James Ruduski explains the main aspects of the Pandemic Treaty:

  1. This is really Corporate Wealth Redistribution Disguised as Health – as this represents a Framework Convention that benefits Big Pharma;
  2. A behind the scenes peak at the Conference of Parties (COP) reveals what the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) scheme does, which gives authority to a government official so they can deem if a countermeasure is required;
  3. Emergency Powers and the PREP Act is another way that governments take control by bypassing normal safety protocols during declared ‘emergencies’ and sets a dangerous precedent;
  4. Vaccines are being developed with self-amplifying mRNA technology for new emerging ‘threats’ such as bird flu, H5N1 and the role of regulatory oversight in this regard;
  5. This reveals biosecurity theatres in which the WHO is given authority over logistics, manufacturing and flow of money for the PREP Act.

Although the World Health Assembly has reached an agreement for the WHO Pandemic Treaty which will be put forward for adoption in mid-May, the international agreements are not legally binding. However, where it becomes problematic for UK citizens is that a section within the agreement based on the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] ⏤ an ironic date given George Orwell’s book “Nineteen Eighty Four” ⏤ empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to adopt or embrace any “international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of an infection or contamination”. While advocates of the WHO Pandemic Agreement opine that it respects national sovereignty, it is also subject to “Obligations under International Law” ⏤ an oxymoron by any standards. Disturbingly, the language of the Agreement also includes emergencies owing to climate change!

The WHO’s One Health initiative integrates human, animal and environmental health across the organization, and includes collaborations with the usual culprits, such as the United Nations (UN) that has created the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Censorship is also notable in this WHO Agreement document with references to the importance of “building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatisation.” Most people are unaware that mandates relating to health are illegal. People should not have to comply with health mandates that are not aligned with their beliefs. Human rights educators and justice advocates have pointed out that individuals are more empowered than they realise but resilience is largely something people do not enact as they are unaware of their true legal rights.

British citizens should ignore these international agreements and treaties and focus on repealing section 45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984]. A recent post on platform X by Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter, explains how repealing section 45 of the 1984 Public Health Act will ensure we can effect how we are governed, as this can only be affected by statutes. Moreover, the 1688 Bill of Rights confirms that no treaty or government proclamation can change our laws: “That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”

These agreements are really about taking money from wealthy nations, via the WHO, to fund and further extend the powers of Big Pharma around the world. The WHO Pandemic Agreement can enable future public health emergency provisions or pandemic-related unapproved therapies to be rolled out globally in circumstances of another health threat. The Pandemic Agreement allows an increase in the supply chain (for medicines, vaccines, and hospital protocols) that may inflict untold damage. People’s individual rights should never be usurped by government ⏤ even in a health emergency situation. The pandemic and PREP Act enabled engineered emergencies to be initiated so that the 4th Industrial Complex architects could profit from such measures. A compliant population kept in a state of perpetual fear relinquishes power too readily. We need to protect ourselves from manipulation by authorities with too much power. The deadline for member nations to reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations is rapidly approaching: July 19, 2025. But our Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, is likely to agree the terms when he attends the World Health Assembly in Geneva on 19th May, well ahead of the rejection deadline.

James Roguski summarises: 10 reasons to reject the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

1. Lack of Public Discussion/Debate ⏤ public debate and discussion has been almost non-existent;

2. Pandemic Related Products ⏤ the proposed Pandemic Agreement is not about health, rather, it is a redistribution of wealth under the guise of ‘equity’;

3. Surveillance ⏤ within the Agreement it states that: “Parties shall take steps through international collaboration, in bilateral, regional and multilateral settings, to progressively strengthen pandemic prevention and surveillance measures and capacities, consistent with the International Health Regulations (2005)”;

4. The One Health Approach ⏤ the Agreement states: “developing, implementing and reviewing relevant national policies and strategies that reflect a One Health approach”. This is a key policy instrument for dealing with global health risks but this has far-reaching implications. The WHO Pandemic Agreement gives the WHO Director-General the ability to issue orders to all nations regarding humans, animals and plant ecosystems when a public health emergency is declared, which overrides nation sovereignty;

5. Massive Expansion of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex ⏤ with Article 10 stating “sustainable and geographically diversified local production”;

6. The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) ⏤ the Pandemic Agreement fails to adequately address the issue of gain-of-function research and the proposed PABS would effectively monetize and incentivize the search for “pathogens with pandemic potential”;

7. The Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network ⏤ put simply the WHO should NOT be given the authority to oversee and/or operate a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network;

8. The Financial Coordinating Mechanism ⏤ this aims to bolster the funding of the WHO to actively control the money and supply chains;

9. The Conference of the Parties ⏤ the establishment of a new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) consisting of unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown bureaucrats ⏤ is unlikely to prioritise the people’s best interests in helping to prevent, prepare for, or respond to future ‘pandemics’;

10. Relevant Stakeholders ⏤ includes private corporations but not we the people.

No informed consent or democratic debate has existed during all these negotiations.

Why this matters is that the WHO Pandemic Agreement has:

⏤ Hidden clauses and centralized control

⏤ Potential impacts on national sovereignty

⏤ Your rights during future health crises will be heavily restricted.

Ultimately public private partnerships do not work and we need transparency. The WHO Pandemic Treaty and vaccine experimentation should not be able to happen again and exiting the WHO or not complying with the Pandemic Agreement is one way to oppose this. Hopefully there is a better way to health ⏤ we need to take away power from government and global officials and we need to contact MPs to raise our objections.

Consider signing the petition linked here FINAL VOTE IMMINENT: REJECT the WHO Pandemic Treaty!

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Tamara Lich found guilty in Freedom Convoy case

The Democracy Fund | May 3, 2025

OTTAWA – In a landmark ruling, Tamara Lich was acquitted of four out of six charges related to her involvement in the Freedom Convoy protest. A fifth charge, counselling to commit mischief, was stayed, leaving only a single conviction of mischief. Justice Perkins-McVey determined that the Crown failed to prove Ms. Lich obstructed police, intimidated others, or counselled obstruction or intimidation during the protest. However, the court found her guilty of mischief as both a principal offender and an aider and abettor, citing her encouragement of others to participate, her fundraising efforts, organizational role, and statements such as “we will hold the line,” which the judge deemed a “rallying cry” to the truckers. Having already spent 49 days in pre-trial detention, Ms. Lich now awaits sentencing after what has been called the longest mischief trial in Canadian history.

The ruling ignites fierce debate over the boundaries of peaceful protest and the growing criminalization of political dissent in Canada. The verdict, delivered after 45 days of trial proceedings concluding on September 13, 2024, marks a significant moment in the legal treatment of protest-related cases, potentially deterring Canadians from exercising their rights to free expression and assembly out of fear of severe legal repercussions.

Her defence, led by top criminal lawyer Lawrence Greenspon and supported by Eric Granger, argued that Ms. Lich’s participation was safeguarded by Charter rights to free expression and peaceful assembly. They contended there was no evidence of criminal intent, emphasizing that police and city actions—such as directing protesters to park in specific areas—contributed to the disruptions. Despite a robust defence, the court rejected these arguments, finding her organizational role and public statements, including calls to “hold the line,” amounted to culpable conduct under the Criminal Code.

The Democracy Fund, which crowdfunded over half a million dollars to cover Ms. Lich’s legal expenses, described the trial as a critical test of Canadians’ right to peaceful assembly. “This ruling is a bittersweet moment—while Tamara Lich’s acquittal on several charges affirms the centrality of free expression, the mischief conviction could be interpreted as punishing some participants for the actions of others,” said Mark Joseph, Director of Litigation for The Democracy Fund. “We remain committed to challenging any erosion of Canadians’ rights to protest.”

As the legal community and public brace for sentencing, the decision raises urgent questions about the balance between public safety and individual freedoms.

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

UCLA Gaza protesters sue over police violence, rubber bullet injuries

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2025

A new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses law enforcement of police brutality during a violent crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in spring 2024.

At the height of nationwide demonstrations against “Israel’s” war on Gaza, the UCLA encampment became a central site of student-led protest. On April 30, a pro-“Israel” mob attacked the encampment for more than four hours. Protesters say that police stood by as counter-demonstrators launched fireworks, sprayed chemical agents, and engaged in harassment and sexual assault, according to The Intercept.

The following day, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, UCLA officials, and multiple law enforcement agencies coordinated plans to dismantle the encampment. On May 1, the encampment was forcibly cleared.

On February 12, 2025, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Graduate Students for Justice in Palestine (GSJP) were placed on interim suspension.

Police response: coordination and forceful dispersal

More than 700 police officers descended on campus, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), California Highway Patrol (CHP), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, University of California Police Department, and private security forces.

During the raid, law enforcement fired over 50 rounds of rubber bullets into the crowd, striking multiple protesters in the head. Several individuals were hospitalized, including one who sustained internal bleeding and another whose hand bones were shattered, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation.

Protesters are now suing both the state of California, which oversees CHP, and the city of Los Angeles, which oversees LAPD. The suit argues that the use of rubber bullets by LAPD and CHP amounted to excessive force and violated protesters’ constitutional rights.

Legal violations: restricted rubber bullets and protesters’ rights

Following mass protests in 2020 against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, California lawmakers passed a law limiting the use of kinetic impact projectiles, commonly known as rubber bullets. The legislation bans their use at protests unless there is an objective and immediate threat to life or serious injury.

The lawsuit states that officers’ actions at the UCLA encampment violated this law. Attorney Becca Brown, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that the indiscriminate firing of such projectiles is both illegal and dangerous.

“They cannot be used simply because someone is non-compliant,” she explained.

Despite UCLA’s revised protocols following 2020 to minimize reliance on external police forces, CHP, typically less involved in protest response, played a prominent role in the May 1 raid.

An LAPD after-action report later attempted to justify the force used, citing incidents like a protester throwing a traffic cone or removing a police helmet. However, the report admitted communication breakdowns among agencies and recommended improved command clarity.

Chilling effect: trauma, criminalization, and fear of future protest

The lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as a UCLA Ph.D. candidate, an undergraduate student, another student from a different university, and an architectural designer. All were struck with rubber bullets, several in the head. Beyond physical injuries, the plaintiffs say the crackdown has severely impacted their willingness to participate in future demonstrations.

“The encampment clearance by means of violence, excessive force, and kinetic energy projectiles traumatized Plaintiffs,” the complaint reads. “It justifiably made them less willing to engage in any further Palestine-related protest activity.”

One plaintiff, Abdullah Puckett, now fears future retaliation if he returns to protest. The complaint states that he is “more hesitant and afraid,” and has had to reevaluate the extent of his participation in pro-Palestine demonstrations.

Broader implications: political accountability and state repression

More than 200 people were arrested during the UCLA encampment clearance. LAPD later requested over $500,000 in reimbursement for the operation, which included 2,400 overtime hours, according to the Daily Bruin. The arrests resulted in criminal records for many students.

Lawyers say those records are now being used by the Trump administration to conduct background checks on international students and potentially flag them for deportation.

“For international students that may have been arrested at any of these encampments, that got flagged and could be subject to deportation under Trump’s fascist policies,” said Ricci Sergienko, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

Sergienko criticized Democratic leaders such as Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Bass, arguing that their actions laid the groundwork for broader state repression. “These attacks also happened in Democratic-run cities and blue states,” he said.

He also warned of mounting censorship in academia, pointing to a proposed bill in California that targets ethnic studies programs under the pretext of combating antisemitism. “That’s another attack on speech coming from the blue state, the liberal paradise of California,” he said.

During a recent screening of the documentary The Encampments at UCLA, police were once again called in. LAPD officers arrested three students.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Did the Israeli Embassy Order My Arrest?

Richard Medhurst | May 3, 2025

Emails show Israeli foreign influence in UK’s legal system: the Attorney General’s Office provided the Israeli Deputy Ambassador with contact information of UK prosecutors and counterterrorism police, in the same period that journalist Richard Medhurst and other British reporters and activists were arrested by CT police in a government crackdown. This raises questions about the impartiality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the degree of foreign meddling in the UK’s judiciary.

Support the show on Patreon: patreon.com/richardmedhurst

Donate on PayPal: https://paypal.me/papichulomin

Donate on GoFundMe: http://tiny.cc/GoFundMe-Richard

Bitcoin address: bc1qnelpedy2q6qu67485w4wnmcya5am873zwxxvvp

Subscribe to Richard Medhurst on other platforms here: Rumble: https://rumble.com/richardmedhurst

Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/richardmedhurst

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@richardmedhurst

Substack: https://richardmedhurst.substack.com/

Richard Thomas Medhurst (1992) is an independent journalist, political commentator, and analyst from the United Kingdom with a focus on international affairs, US politics, and the Middle East. Medhurst is known for his coverage of the Julian Assange extradition case in London, as one of the only journalists to report on the trial of the WikiLeaks founder from inside the court.

He has also covered the Iran nuclear deal talks on the ground in Vienna. Medhurst was born in Damascus, Syria.

His father is English and mother is Syrian. Both his parents served in United Nations Peacekeeping and Observer missions and were among the UN Peacekeepers awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Owing to his parents’ professional mobility, he has lived in Syria, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Austria. He speaks four languages fluently: English, Arabic, French, and German.

As an independent journalist, Medhurst regularly hosts live broadcasts and video reports on his YouTube channel. Previous guests include the Foreign Minister of Venezuela, the Dep Foreign Minister of Iran; the Palestinian, Russian and Cuban ambassadors to the United Nations in Vienna; the former British Ambassador to Syria; and various UN officials, journalists, and more. Medhurst’s reports and analysis on Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, Niger, Lebanon, Iran, the Israeli occupation in Palestine and its genocide in Gaza have gone viral countless times, racking up millions of views.

Richard Medhurst has a combined following of roughly one million people online, and appears regularly on international news outlets including Al Jazeera, WikiLeaks, Black Agenda Report, Al Mayadeen, The Times, LBC, and others.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Sandu’s Pro-Western Regime Forces Students to Deny Moldovan Identity

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 04.05.2025

After President Maia Sandu, who adheres to a pro-European policy, came to power in the republic at the end of 2020, there followed political crackdowns, media purges, and a rewriting of history to fit the agenda.

A new history textbook for school claims Moldovans don’t exist – they’re just Romanians.

Moldovans do not exist as a separate nation at all, the authors state, leaning on century-old quotes from Teofil Ioncu, a member of the National Moldavian Party.

Back in 1917, he argued that “Moldova” and “Moldovans” were just geographic terms – not indicators of national identity.

Citing the 2024 census, the textbook claims that around 82% of Moldovans identify as either Romanians or Moldovans.

In fact, the official 2024 Population and Housing Census says otherwise – 77.2% call themselves Moldovans, and only 7.9% identify as Romanians.

It should be noted that the same textbook cited above calls the Battle of Stalingrad a “disaster,” and whitewashes the Romanian role in WWII.

Earlier, under the pro-EU regime of Maia Sandu, who has Romanian citizenship, “Moldovan” was scrubbed from official use and rebranded as “Romanian” – a cultural annexation rubber-stamped by Brussels.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Facebook Shuts Down Town Council Candidate’s Account Weeks Before Election

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 3, 2025

Courtney Knill, a candidate for city council in Charles Town, West Virginia, found herself abruptly cut off from her Facebook account last week, a blow that landed just weeks before voters head to the polls. Facebook accused Knill of impersonating herself and removed her page, eliminating a major outreach tool from her campaign.

The takedown came without any prior notice. When Knill attempted to access her account, she was met with a message citing violations of “community standards.” Facebook’s process for appeal offered no clarity or second chances.

“All they had me do was record a video of myself where they had me point my face in a different direction, basically just showing that you are who you say they are,” she said to the Post Millennial. But the appeal was denied.

“They reviewed it, and then just today I got the notice: We disabled your account… reviewed your account. It still doesn’t follow our community standards on account integrity. You cannot request another review of this decision, and you can download your information if you want. And that’s it,” Knill said. “Done. Campaign Facebook page shut down.”

Her accounts on Instagram and X remain live, but Facebook, a dominant force in local elections, is no longer accessible to her. The platform gave no specific explanation for what content, if any, violated its standards.

Silencing a candidate during an active election cycle, especially without justification, raises urgent questions about unchecked corporate control over public discourse. When platforms erase campaigns with no transparency or accountability, the real casualties are voters who lose access to the voices and ideas meant to represent them.

May 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Here’s What’s Really Behind German Government’s Crackdown on AfD

Sputnik – 03.05.2025

Besides trying to stigmatize the conservative populist party among voters, the German domestic intelligence agency’s move to slap Alternative for Germany (AfD) with an “extremism” label has far more sinister motives, says renowned German lawyer, academic and former AfD MEP lawmaker Gunnar Beck.

The German intelligence service’s decision to recognize the AfD as a “right-wing extremist movement” is the latest step in a long history of attacks on the party, Beck told Sputnik, recalling that AfD “has been stigmatized and discriminated against, and as far as possible, really excluded from parliamentary processes” since it came into existence in 2013.

Political Ploy

The new “right-wing extremist movement” label will allow government agents to legally infiltrate the party, both to spy on it, and to act as agents provocateur, for example, by making extremist statements while pretending to be loyal party members.

“Political parties in Germany are generally in a very privileged position. They get a lot of public funding. The more votes the party gets, the more public funding it usually gets,” Beck explained.

“However, once a party is classified as extremist, and that’s now happened, the federal authorities can deprive it of public funding. Now, this decision would have to be confirmed by the German courts, but given that federal and regional ministers or federal political bodies, or regional ministries of justice appoint most judges in Germany, they are usually very obliging.”

This means that in future elections, the AfD potentially won’t have the same funding and resources available to campaign and spread its message.

Spreading Stigma

By classifying the AfD as right-wing extremists, the government will also be able to try to detract voters from voting for the party, and threaten civil servants who are members of the party with removal and loss of pensions, on the grounds that they ‘undermine’ the political order of the Federal Republic, Beck says.

Authorities will also gain more power to initiate bogus criminal prosecutions against AfD members. Beck noted that already, “a lot of AfD politicians have to spend a fair amount of their income on legal action, defending themselves against very questionable criminal and other allegations.”

It remains “an open question” whether the stigmatization strategy will work or not, Beck said, emphasizing that in the former East Germany especially, the public isn’t as likely to be influenced by the official state media and is more likely to see through government propaganda.

Steering Policy

Over time, the legal authority to infiltrate the party also means agents could eventually “naturally influence AfD policy,” either in the direction of radicalism and stoking infighting to discredit the party, or to influence it “to become more moderate and almost indistinguishable from the established parties,” the observer said.

In both cases, the goal is the same: to get people to “lose confidence in the AfD once it doesn’t really offer any real alternatives any longer.”

The power of intelligence infiltration operations cannot be overstated, Beck emphasized, pointing out that “Germany has no less than 19 secret services,” including three federal ones. “The intelligence sector in Germany is the only growth sector in the whole of the economy, together with the armaments industry now. So they have enormous public resources.”

Could AfD Just Be Banned Outright?

In theory, the government could try to outlaw the AfD, with the courts likely to rubber-stamp the process because they are appointed by the government and parliament, Beck says.

It would be “very difficult,” however, “to justify outlawing a party that currently has between 20 and 25 percent” support, “and is the second-largest party in Germany as a whole, and the largest party in east Germany.”

Therefore, Beck expects authorities to stick to the strategy of stigmatization, infiltration, and divide and rule, and ban the party later, if needed, once support drops to 10 or 15%.

Europe Losing Its Democracies

“Germany is not alone in cracking down on political criticism against the establishment,” Beck said, pointing to similar processes in Romania and France against leading non-systemic opposition.

“I think we are seeing Europe move into a much more authoritarian period. The so-called democratic states are [not] democratic because they do not respect democratic outcomes and undesirable (from their point of view) outcomes of elections, and they don’t follow the rule of law,” Beck lamented.

“We are already seeing widespread political repression in Europe. And what’s happening in Germany… is simply the tip of the iceberg. But as you know, an iceberg is usually about seven times larger than the tip of it above the surface. And I would expect it’s roughly the same with political repression in Germany and Europe. There’s much more going on than is reported in the papers and we ever get to know about it. Everything I’ve said so far shows how heavily stacked the political game in Europe is against those who do not accept the status quo, against the so-called populist or extremist parties,” the observer summed up.

May 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 3, 2025

A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.

The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.

The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.

Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”

Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.

“For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that it violates the First Amendment to retaliate against a representative for exercising their right to free speech — and has firmly rejected immunity claims in nearly identical circumstances,” she continued. “Yet today, Maine stands alone, insisting it can silence me and deprive my constituents of representation for the remainder of my term simply because I told the truth on social media.”

May 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US House to vote on bill criminalizing boycott of Israel

Press TV – May 3, 2025

The US House of Representatives is set to vote on a controversial bill that proposes fines or prison terms for Americans participating in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements, promoted by international governmental organizations such as the UN or EU.

The House is scheduled to vote Monday on the contentious anti-boycott act, which seeks to penalize American citizens with fines up to $1 million or prison terms as long as 20 years for boycotting the Israeli regime.

Sponsored by pro-Israel congressmen Mike Lawler and Josh Gottheimer, the bill will broaden the US anti-boycott law by targeting voluntary, values-based political actions undertaken by American citizens.

The underlying objective is to shield the Israeli regime from non-violent international pressure campaigns, notably the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS).

Rights groups warned that the legislation will criminalize constitutionally protected political expression.

The move, according to rights groups, is part of a broader push by the US government to suppress opposition to Israeli genocide, apartheid, and illegal settlement expansion, under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

The original act was introduced in 2024. Back then the Republican-controlled Congress passed this bill with broad bipartisan support, but the Senate Democrats blocked the legislation.

Now that Republicans control the Senate as well, there is a significant chance that the act will pass both Congress and Senate.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful Israeli lobby group in the US, said it “strongly supports” the act.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Action has already supported the legislation and broader congressional campaigns to push back against anti-Israeli boycotts.

The majority of anti-Israeli boycotts aim to force the regime to end its genocidal war on Gaza that has taken the lives of more than 52,500 Palestinians and injured at least 118,000, most of whom are children and women.

The Israeli regime has put Gaza on a total blockade for 2 months and barred the entry of all humanitarian aid, including food, which according to the UN’s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), has driven the territory’s 2.3 million population toward famine.

May 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »