Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 104
March 13, 2025
EU Backs Islamic Terrorists in Syria While Russia, US Condemn Their Massacres
By Drago BosnicEver since the NATO-backed terrorist takeover of Syria, the situation in the country has been a total disaster. The Islamic radicals have been conducting extremist policies that strip minorities of virtually any rights. Many analysts (myself included) have predicted that the real Syrian Civil War is only starting and that the previous one was a crawling NATO aggression against sovereign Syria. With the fall of Assad, the country was turned into a (neo)colony of NATO and its allies in the region. Any semblance of a civilized society came crashing down as various foreign-backed terrorist groups took power.
It wouldn’t be long before they started a genocidal campaign against minorities, particularly the native Christians and Alawites. These groups were treated well under Assad (himself being an Alawite) and were loyal to his government. This makes them top priority targets under the Islamic terrorist regime.
In the last several days, the war crimes committed by these radicals came under the spotlight as they published videos of gruesome atrocities against civilians (including women, children and the elderly). The footage of these monstrous massacres is not for the faint of heart (here, here, here, here and here). Minorities in western Syria have taken up arms to defend their homes and families, as the terrorist al-Sharaa regime keeps sending its forces to eradicate Christians and Alawites.
Now, you’d expect there at least wouldn’t be open support for the Islamic radicals, but that’s precisely what’s happening now. Namely, despite being faced with numerous issues at home the pathetically impotent European Union somehow found the time to “strongly condemn the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians”.
Yes, you read that right. Brussels is criticizing Christians and Alawites for defending themselves while supporting the barbaric actions of the terrorist regime. Despite being fully aware of what’s going on, the EU also called for “civilians to be protected in all circumstances in full respect of international humanitarian law. The rest of the statement reads that “the EU also calls on all external actors to fully respect the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria” and “condemns any attempts to undermine stability and the prospects for a lasting peaceful transition, inclusive and respectful of all Syrians in their diversity”.
Under the New “Freedom-bringing”,”Diverse”, Syrian “Government”, Minorities Are Being Hunted Down, Tortured and KilledThis sounds like the troubled bloc is laughing in the face of the victims, not to mention the “respect for the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria” that has been regularly violated precisely by the EU/NATO that has kept the country under siege for nearly a decade and a half.
All this is happening while the Islamic radicals are publicly bragging about their war crimes and posting images and videos on social media. In the meantime, the Russian military is doing everything it can to save as many civilians as possible. Namely, the Khmeimim airbase took in thousands of civilians fleeing from near-certain death (reportedly at least 7,000 people). Prominent journalists such as Tucker Carlson have been warning about the NATO-backed terrorists for years, pointing out that the Assad government was protecting ancient Christian communities in the country for decades.
Expectedly, he was regularly denigrated as an “Assad apologist” because of this, but his concerns for the safety of minorities in Syria after the terrorist takeover turned out to be completely valid. On the other hand, the mainstream propaganda machine is still trying its best to whitewash these NATO-backed Islamic radicals.
This is particularly true for the likes of rabidly pro-terrorist media such as Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, the terrorist al-Sharaa regime realized that posting videos of these massacres is “bad PR”, so they now advise their Islamic radicals to “refrain from posting such footage”. On the other hand, the reaction of some other countries to all this is quite unexpected. Namely, the US, one of the principal backers of numerous terrorist and extremist groups around the world, actually condemned the atrocities by these NATO-backed Islamic radicals.
In an official statement, State Secretary Marco Rubio said that America “condemns the radical Islamist terrorists, including foreign jihadis, that murdered people in western Syria in recent days” and “stands with Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities, including its Christian, Druze, Alawite, and Kurdish communities, and offers its condolences to the victims and their families”.
What’s more, Moscow and Washington DC called for a UN Security Council meeting regarding the situation in terrorist-infested Syria. The meeting is scheduled for today and will see Russia and the US virtually “on the same side”, which is an unprecedented development that nobody would’ve imagined just days ago due to America’s usually unquestionable support for the Islamic radicals. Normally, Washington DC shouldn’t be trusted, but in this case, it’s not impossible that it could play a relatively constructive role.
For years, Trump has been saying that he thinks Assad is “a better alternative” to terrorists, which could explain a shift in the policies of his administration. On the other hand, it should also be noted that Trump attacked Assad directly during his first term, so the Kremlin will most likely be quite reserved and vigilant when it comes to US actions, even when they superficially match its own.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/eu-islamic-terrorists-syria/5881824
RFK JR: “Most of our scientists against the [H5N1 bird flu] culling operation.”
By Nicolas HulscherRobert F. Kennedy Jr. recently went on ‘Hannity’ and stated the following:
Most of our scientists are against the [H5N1 bird flu] culling operation. They think that we should be testing therapeutics on those flocks. They should isolate them. You should let the disease go through them and identify the birds that survive, which are the birds that probably have a genetic, genetic inclination for immunity.
And those should be the birds that we breed, like the wild population. Right. Right now, the White House strategy is to repopulate those farms that have been depopulated.
We’ve killed 166 million chickens. That’s why we have an egg crisis.
This is fantastic news for the American people; we finally have public health agencies that use common sense.
Mass-depopulated poultry farms are forced to remain non-operational for an average of 111 days following H5N1 pooled PCR detections. Under the “stamping out” protocol, entire flocks are culled within 24 to 48 hours of a single positive pooled PCR test—where swabs from 11 birds are combined—even if most birds appear healthy. Because swabbed birds are not marked, there is no way to distinguish infected birds from healthy ones, ensuring that mass culling wipes out entire flocks indiscriminately: see this.
This flawed approach not only devastates poultry farms but also fuels a never-ending cycle of mass culling, human infections, and food supply disruptions. With H5N1 now widespread in migratory waterfowl, farms will continue to face reinfection despite repeated culling. Chickens will never develop herd immunity under these biosecurity protocols, making current policies unsustainable. Governments must acknowledge this reality and put an end the “Mass Culling Cycle of Devastation” that has already wasted over $1.25 billion in taxpayer money, disrupted America’s food supply chain, led to chicken-to-human transmission, and failed to stop H5N1 bird flu:
.
.
As we outlined a few weeks ago, a more strategic and sustainable approach is needed:
Instead of ineffective and counterproductive measures like mass depopulation or experimental mRNA injections, efforts should focus on selective culling of test positive sick birds and breeding for natural immunity, ensuring that poultry populations develop resistance to the virus without driving rapid viral evolution. Additionally, an immediate halt to gain-of-function research is necessary to eliminate the risk of artificially enhanced pathogens escaping or being deliberately released.
Public health measures should also emphasize accessible preventative solutions, such as iodine-based nasal sprays and gargles, which hold promise in preventing zoonotic avian influenza transmission and human infection. Regular use of iodine nasal sprays by farmers, poultry workers, and veterinarians could help reduce viral carriage in the upper respiratory tract, lowering the risk of infection from direct animal exposure.
.
.
Additionally, iodine-based antiseptics should be explored for use in livestock and poultry settings, as indicated by Hnia et al, who found that a once-daily application of a povidone-iodine antiseptic with a film-forming agent effectively prevented influenza A virus transmission in a guinea pig model. Their study demonstrated that applying iodine to the nares of either the infected or susceptible animal—or both—significantly reduced transmission, even in a shared cage environment. This suggests that iodine-based antiseptics could be an effective tool in reducing viral spread in agricultural settings, particularly among poultry and livestock where H5N1 transmission is widespread.
.
.
It’s time for policymakers to abandon outdated, failed strategies and implement practical, science-backed solutions to combat H5N1 bird flu. Instead of perpetuating the disastrous cycle of mass culling and driving the evolution of more dangerous strains through mass vaccination, public health agencies must prioritize therapeutics, natural immunity, and practical preventative measures to protect both animal and human health.
[…]
Duterte’s Arrest: Interpol Red Notice and ICC Procedural Implications
The Renaissance Man
The recent arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked discussions about the legal processes involved, particularly concerning the roles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Interpol. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial in assessing the implications for Duterte’s case.
Arrest and Transfer of Duterte
On March 11, 2025, Duterte was arrested by Philippine authorities upon his arrival from Hong Kong at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice issued at the request of the ICC, which has charged Duterte with crimes against humanity related to his anti-drug campaign during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. Following his arrest, Duterte was swiftly transferred to The Hague to face trial before the ICC.
President Marcos’ Statement on the Arrest
In a press briefing, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. clarified that the arrest was executed in compliance with the Philippines’ commitments to Interpol. He emphasized that the Interpol Manila had received an official copy of the ICC warrant against Duterte, leading to the arrest. Marcos stated, “Interpol asked for help, and we obliged because we have commitments to the Interpol which we have to fulfill.”
Understanding Interpol Red Notices
An Interpol Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition or similar legal action. It is important to note that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. Instead, it serves as a notification of an existing arrest warrant issued by judicial authorities, in this case, the ICC. The effectiveness of a Red Notice depends on the legal framework and cooperation agreements of the member countries.
Procedural Considerations Under the Rome Statute
The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, outlines specific procedures for the arrest and surrender of individuals:
1. Article 59(1): Requires that a state party which has received a request for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute.
2. Article 59(2): Mandates that the arrested person shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state, which shall determine that:
The warrant applies to that person;
The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
The person’s rights have been respected.
3. Article 59(3): Provides the arrested person the right to apply for interim release pending surrender.
In Duterte’s case, the immediate transfer to The Hague raises questions about whether these procedural safeguards were observed, particularly his right to challenge the arrest and seek interim release before Philippine judicial authorities.
Implications for Duterte’s Case
If it is determined that the procedural requirements under the Rome Statute were not fully observed, several implications could arise:
Challenge to Jurisdiction: Duterte’s defense may argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction due to procedural irregularities during the arrest and transfer process.
Suppression of Evidence: Evidence obtained through potentially flawed procedures might be deemed inadmissible, impacting the prosecution’s case.
Reputational Impact on the ICC: Perceived procedural missteps could affect the ICC’s credibility and its ability to secure cooperation from member states in future cases.
Did the Philippine Government Violate Its Own Sovereignty by Arresting Duterte?
This is where legal complications arise. Since the Philippines is no longer an ICC member state:
1. It has no obligation to enforce ICC arrest warrants.
ICC warrants are only legally binding on member states or states that voluntarily cooperate with the ICC.
The Philippine government was not required to arrest Duterte under ICC rules.
2. The use of an Interpol Red Notice complicates the case.
President Marcos claimed that the arrest was made due to an Interpol Red Notice, not directly because of the ICC warrant.
However, an Interpol Red Notice does not legally override national laws—it merely requests cooperation from local authorities.
The legal basis under Philippine law for executing the arrest remains unclear since the country is not legally bound to comply with ICC requests.
3. Possible violations of the Philippine Constitution.
Duterte’s legal team could argue that since the Philippines is not an ICC member, his arrest lacked legal basis under domestic law.
Under the Philippine Constitution, arrests must be based on Philippine law, and there is no existing law requiring compliance with ICC warrants after the country’s withdrawal.
Did the Philippines Violate Duterte’s Due Process Rights?
Yes, there are strong arguments that the Philippine government violated Duterte’s due process rights in several ways:
1. Immediate Transfer to The Hague Without a Judicial Review
Article 59(2) of the Rome Statute requires that any arrested person must first appear before a judge in the arresting country to confirm the warrant’s validity.
If Duterte was transferred to The Hague without this step, his rights under both international law and Philippine law may have been violated.
2. No Opportunity to Challenge the Arrest in a Philippine Court
Article 59(3) of the Rome Statute grants arrested persons the right to apply for interim release before the courts of the arresting country.
If Duterte was denied this chance, his due process rights were not upheld.
3. Questionable Legal Basis for Arrest Since the Philippines Is Not an ICC Member
The Philippine government cannot legally justify the arrest under ICC obligations since it is no longer a state party.
The lack of a clear Philippine law authorizing ICC-related arrests raises constitutional concerns.
What Happens Next?
Duterte’s legal team will likely challenge the validity of his arrest before the ICC and Philippine courts. If the ICC acknowledges procedural violations, it could:
Suspend proceedings until the due process issues are resolved.
Grant Duterte interim release pending review of his arrest.
Undermine the ICC’s legitimacy, as critics will argue that it disregarded its own legal standards.
Republic Act No. 9851: Does It Justify Duterte’s Arrest?
Republic Act No. 9851, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, was enacted in 2009. It domesticates the principles of international criminal law and provides legal mechanisms for prosecuting individuals responsible for serious international crimes under Philippine law.
Key Provisions Relevant to Duterte’s Case
1. RA 9851 Recognizes Crimes Against Humanity (Section 6)
Duterte is accused of crimes against humanity under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
RA 9851 also defines and penalizes crimes against humanity under Philippine law.
This means Duterte could be prosecuted domestically in the Philippines, without requiring ICC involvement.
2. RA 9851 Recognizes Universal Jurisdiction (Section 17)
The law states that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, even if committed outside the country.
This reinforces the principle of accountability for grave offenses.
3. RA 9851 Requires Judicial Oversight for Arrests (Section 18-19)
The law requires suspects to undergo a judicial process in Philippine courts before being surrendered to an international tribunal.
Duterte was not given this process, as he was immediately transferred to The Hague.
Failure to conduct a proper judicial review before extradition violates RA 9851.
Does RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?
Yes and No.
Yes, Duterte can be arrested under RA 9851
The law criminalizes crimes against humanity in the Philippines.
Since Duterte is accused of such crimes, his arrest could be justified under Philippine law.
No, because he should have been tried in the Philippines first
RA 9851 states that the Philippines has primary jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.
If Duterte was to be prosecuted, it should have been through Philippine courts first before any extradition or transfer to the ICC.
Did the Philippine Government Violate RA 9851?
Yes, the government violated RA 9851’s legal process
Duterte was not first subjected to Philippine judicial proceedings before being handed over to the ICC.
RA 9851 requires that an accused person be brought before a Philippine court before any transfer to an international tribunal.
Skipping this step violates Philippine due process and sovereignty.
Duterte’s legal team could use RA 9851 to challenge his transfer
They can argue that the Philippines failed to follow its own law before turning Duterte over to the ICC.
If this argument is successful, the ICC could be forced to review the legality of Duterte’s surrender and even suspend proceedings.
Did RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?
1. RA 9851 criminalizes crimes against humanity, so Duterte’s arrest could be justified under Philippine law.
2. However, Duterte should have faced trial in the Philippines first before being transferred to the ICC.
3. By immediately surrendering Duterte to the ICC, the Philippine government bypassed RA 9851’s due process requirements.
4. This procedural violation could weaken the ICC’s case and provide legal grounds for Duterte to challenge his extradition.
Bottom Line: RA 9851 does not justify Duterte’s immediate transfer to The Hague—it actually requires that he be tried in the Philippines first.
Conclusion
While President Marcos’ assertion that Duterte’s arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice is accurate, the immediate transfer to The Hague without affording Duterte the opportunity to challenge his arrest or seek interim release before a Philippine judicial authority raises concerns about the violation of his due process rights under the Rome Statute. Ensuring adherence to established legal procedures is essential to uphold the integrity of international justice and the protection of individual rights.
Contrary to its claim, the Philippine government violated the provisions of the Rome Statute with regard to the arrest, Duterte’s right to due process under the Rome Statute and the Philippine Constitution and the provisions of Republic Act No. 9851.
[…]
Russian President Putin Accepts US-Ukraine Ceasefire Plan — But With Specific Conditions
Screenshot: RT / X
By Paul Serran
While everything pointed to the Russian side rejecting the US-Ukraine ceasefire plan – including comments made today (13) by top negotiator Yuri Ushakov – President Vladimir Putin has come out and said that he accepts the idea, provided some conditions are met.
Speaking to the press after a meeting with Belarusian President Lukashenko, Putin has shocked geopolitical analysts with his acceptance of the ceasefire plan.
The Telegraph reported:
“Vladimir Putin has agreed to a US plan for a short-term ceasefire, but with specific conditions.
The Russian president said: ‘We agree with the proposals for the ceasefire, but our position is based on the assumption the ceasefire will lead to a long-term peace’.”
Vladimir Putin is in favor of the US plan for a 30-day truce in Ukraine ‘but there are nuances’.
“The Russian president said plenty of questions remain over how the ceasefire will be implemented and who will control it.”
BREAKING: Russian President Putin officially agrees to US President Trump’s ceasefire proposal with Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/zWMOE6LP3C
— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) March 13, 2025
Earlier, Putin’s top negotiator Yuri Ushalov had stated what was considered the obvious: Russia would not accept the plan.
Yury Ushakov stated:
“
Moscow does not want a temporary truce; it is interested in a long-term settlement;
Yesterday, writing about this, I stated:
“Now, the question on everyone’s mind is: ‘Will Russia accept the truce?’ The short and simplistic answer is most probably not.”
I have never been so happy to be wrong.
But I also wrote:
“Does that mean that the peace process is over?
Not at all. […] It’s highly unlikely that Putin will not find a way to keep the process going strong. There are skilled negotiators in both sides, and they have been in touch this whole time, so it’s unlikely that the US team just went on a limb on a losing proposition.”
[…]
Professor at Center of Columbia University Deportation Scandal Former Israeli Spy
Alan MacLeod
The professor at the center of the Columbia University deportation scandal is a former Israeli intelligence official, MintPress News can reveal.
Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of the university’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), was abducted by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Saturday for his role in organizing protests last year against Israel’s attack on Gaza. Khalil’s dean, Dr. Keren Yarhi-Milo, head of the School of International and Public Affairs, is a former Israeli military intelligence officer and official at Israel’s Mission to the United Nations. Yarhi-Milo played a significant role in drumming up public concern about a supposed wave of intolerable anti-Semitism sweeping over the campus, thereby laying the groundwork for the extensive crackdown on civil liberties that has followed the protests.
Spooks in Our MidstBefore entering academia, Dr. Yarhi-Milo served as an officer and an intelligence analyst with the Israeli Defense Forces. Given that she was recruited into the intelligence services because of her ability to speak Arabic fluently, her job likely entailed surveilling the Arab population.
After leaving the world of intelligence, she worked for Israel’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. While there, she met and married her husband, Israel’s official United Nations spokesperson.
Although she is now an academic, she has never left the world of international security, making the subject her area of expertise. She has made a point of trying to lift women’s voices in the field. One of these was the then-U.S. Director of National Security, Avril Haines, whom she spoke with in 2023. But even though Khalil was a student in her school, she had nothing to say about his arrest. Indeed, rather than speak out on the issue (as activists have demanded), she instead chose this week to invite Naftali Bennett, prime minister of Israel from 2021 to 2022, to speak at Columbia. Students protesting Tuesday’s event were condemned by university authorities for “harassing” Yarhi-Milo.
Unprecedented Protests, Unprecedented RepressionColumbia was the epicenter of a massive protest movement across university campuses nationwide last year. It is estimated that at least eight percent of all American college students participated in demonstrations denouncing the genocidal attack on Gaza and calling on educational institutions to divest from Israel. The response was equally vast in its scale. Well over 3,000 protestors were arrested, including faculty members themselves.
The nationwide movement began at Columbia on April 17, when a modest Gaza solidarity encampment was established. Protestors were shocked when university president Minouche Shafik immediately called in the New York Police Department – the first time the university had allowed police to suppress dissent on campus since the famous 1968 demonstrations against the Vietnam War.
Mahmoud Khalil was among the leaders of the movement. The Syrian-born Palestinian refugee was willing to speak calmly and cogently to the press about the protest’s goals. A permanent resident of the United States, he was abducted by ICE on Saturday.
“ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign pro-Hamas student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come,” President Trump stated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s ominous threat, announcing, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” In another clear threat, the Trump administration moved to cancel $400 million in funding to Columbia University, citing the institution’s failure to sufficiently crack down on “antisemitic” incidents on campus.
Khalil’s eight-month pregnant wife was initially told that he had been taken to a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In fact, he had been moved halfway across the country to a center in Jena, Louisiana. Journalist Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider explained that ICE often goes “immigration ‘judge shopping’ by putting detainees in detention centers under jurisdictions of courts that very rarely decide in favor of migrants.”
The very high-profile attempt to deport the holder of a Green Card because of political speech criticizing a foreign government has left many civil rights lawyers deeply worried. Alec Karakatsanis, for example, stated that “I’ve never seen a more clear-cut First Amendment violation, or a more flagrant government declaration of intent to violate blackletter law.” “The government does not claim he committed a crime, just that he held views that the government doesn’t like about Israel. Bone chilling,” he added.
Columbia’s Billionaire Pro-Israel BackersMuch of Columbia’s funding comes from donations from billionaire benefactors. But those gifts come with strings attached. This became apparent in the wake of the protest movement, as many pro-Israel patrons demanded the university take action. Manufacturing magnate Robert Kraft, for example, publicly announced he was cutting his alma mater off from his lavish funding over its failure to effectively suppress the demonstrations.
Hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman did the same, demanding that Columbia’s “crazy kids” “have to be controlled.” These “kids” evidently also included 61-year-old Jordanian professor Joseph Massad, whose views on the Middle East Cooperman found intolerable, and called for his firing. Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik, meanwhile, urged police to hold the protestors to account.
Between them, Kraft, Cooperman and Blavatnik are believed to have donated nearly $100 million to Columbia, giving them considerable influence over the political direction of the university.
There were also voices from within the university clamoring for the violent suppression of the student movement. Assistant Professor of Business Management Shai Davidai, for example, denounced the protestors as “Nazis” and “terrorists” and called for the National Guard to be set upon the encampment, obliquely referencing the Kent State University Massacre while doing so. Davidai, an Israeli-American, served in the IDF and has publicly expressed his pride in doing so.
Given its most recent addition, it appears unlikely that the School of International and Public Affairs will moderate its pro-Israel positions. In January, the school announced that Jacob Lew would join the faculty. Lew had just left his job as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel under the Biden administration, a role in which he facilitated American complicity in genocide, supplying Israel with weapons and providing it with diplomatic support for its efforts.
Defending Israel, Destroying Free SpeechLongtime readers of MintPress News will be less surprised than many to hear that Israeli military intelligence officials hold such important positions in American public life. Previous MintPress investigations have uncovered giant networks of former Israeli spies working in top jobs in big tech and social media companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon. Even TikTok, often labeled a Chinese spying app, has hired former Israeli spies to run its affairs. And in October, we revealed that former Israeli spooks are writing America’s news, with multiple former agents working at top U.S. outlets, including CNN, Axios, and the New York Times.
Perhaps, then, the fact that the dean of the very school at the center of a worldwide media storm is a former Israeli military intelligence officer should not be such a shock. But it remains a stark reminder of the level of extraordinary institutional bias in favor of Israel displayed across the United States.
[…]
Via https://www.mintpressnews.com/professor-columbia-university-scandal-former-israeli-spy/289231/
March 12, 2025
Is President Trump an Israeli Puppet?
Paul Craig Roberts
President Trump has given every indication that he is as concerned with Israel’s interest as he is with the interests of MAGA Americans. I have expressed the hope that Trump’s sickening kowtowing to Israel is a strategy to keep the Israel Lobby off his back until he can deal with other opponents who stand in the way of his domestic agenda. I still have this hope, but it has been shaken by the Trump administration’s sacrifice of constitutionally protected free speech in order to protect Israel from criticism.
Last Friday the Epoch Times reported that the Trump administration had cancelled $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University for failing to act on allegations of anti-semitism. The Trump administration’s “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” consists of the departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Resources, and the General Services Administration. The members of this task force are well positioned to ingratiate themselves with Israel, which can easily result in well-enumerated positions after their time in government is over.
What does the Trump task force mean by “anti-semitism”? It means protests against Israel’s destruction of Palestine. It means that no matter how horrific Israel’s war crimes and no matter the ICC’s indictment of Netanyahu, for students and faculty to protest genocide or mass murder, if Israel is the perpetrator, is “anti-semitic.” It is OK to protest against other countries, but not against Israel.
Protests against Israel’s actions are equated with harassment and persecution of Jewish students at Columbia. This equation implies that Jewish Americans identify with Israel and not with the United States. Does an immigrant from England feel harassed and persecuted if Americans protest against England? President Trump has branded protests against Israel “illegal protests.” In other words, Trump is saying that the exercise of free speech if Israel is the target is illegal because it is anti-semitic. Protesters can say whatever they wish about Americans, Russia, China, Muslims, and Palestinians, but not about Israelis.
Trump is also guilty of conflating Israeli citizens with American Jewish citizens. If Trump applied his Israeli standards to all ethnicities, no one would be able to express any criticism and protest any action by any government.
Trump declared: “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on … the crime, arrested.” Trump did not explain how the First Amendment became illegal. Does his dictate apply to Black Lives Matter and Antifa, to LGBTQ protests?
Do Trump, the DOJ and other departments realize that they have criminalized a constitutionally-protected right if that right is used to protest Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians? In the United States is it now illegal to protest genocide if Israelis are the perpetrators?
I was surprised that Columbia, a wealthy private university, was receiving $400 million in US taxpayers’ money. But it turns out that $400 million is only the tip off the iceberg. The Epoch Times reports that Columbia “holds about $5 billion in federal grant commitments.”
This is big money even for Columbia. In response to the money threat, the university’s administration accepted the Trump administration’s destruction of the First Amendment and quickly got on board with the Trump administration. Columbia announced that its administration is “fully committed to combatting antisemitism” and “looks forward to ongoing work with the new federal administration to fight antisemitism.”
Trump and his supporters do not recognize the blatant contradiction between suppressing free speech and Making America Great Again.
America’s greatness did not come from tyranny. America’s greatness resides in the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. It is disheartening to find the First Amendment under assault by the Trump regime.
[…]
Via https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/03/10/is-president-trump-an-israeli-puppet/
Gabbard Defangs Ex-Intel Officials
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi swears in Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, Feb. 12, 2025 (Office of the Director of National Intelligence/Public Domain)
By Ray McGovern
All their clearances were X-ed out on “X,” on which Gabbard wrote:
“Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden ‘disinformation’ letter. The President’s Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden.”
Gabbard’s move will send a tidal wave through Washington D.C.’s Tidal Basin. Creatures of “The Swamp,” plus allies in the media and Democratic Party, will raise a din. No matter. The intelligence chiefs who corrupted the profession in which I once took pride had it coming.
[Former C.I.A. agent John Kiriakou told Consortium News‘ CN Live! in February 2023 that while he was at the C.I.A. he often saw former senior agency officials hanging around headquarters discussing current intelligence and political matters. This should be harder to do now without their security clearances.]
Director Gabbard’s action is a clear warning that her boss told her to shut down the deep-state cottage industry of former spies able and willing to interfere in U.S. elections. Besides, a security clearance is a privilege, not an entitlement. President Trump said, “These are people we don’t respect.”
Trump has learned that the hard way – before and during his first term. The abundant evidence of intelligence officials meddling in domestic politics during the debunked Russiagate “scandal” justifies the step he ordered Gabbard to take.
How Far Will Gabbard Go?
There is more housecleaning to do. Gabbard should have a well-informed ally to assist her in cleaning the Augean stables -– new F.B.I. Director Kash Patel.
Among other key positions he held, Patel was a senior staff investigator on the House Intelligence Committee. He prepared a damning critique of the so-called “Intelligence Community Assessment” of Jan. 6, 2017, which blamed – with no hard evidence – the Russians for “hacking” those DNC emails so prejudicial to candidate Hillary Clinton, and which launched Russiagate into full swing.
Thanks to the suppression of news by Establishment media, few Americans are aware that the “Russia hacking” charge was disproven more than seven years ago, by the fellow who knew, CrowdStrike President, in sworn testimony.
While Clinton kept claiming that the evidence-free claims of the “Intelligence Community Assessment” were supported “by all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies”, Patel’s investigation of classified material proved that to be a whopping lie. Rather, it was put together by four or five “handpicked analysts” led by then-C.I.A. Director John Brennan (amongst those now stripped of their clearances by Gabbard).
State Department Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a dozen other agencies were excluded. Brennan got only NSA and the F.B.I. to endorse it, and the NSA reluctantly.
Speaking Freely
New FBODirector Patel spoke freely to journalist Aaron Mate about this and other experiences, just after he left government in February 2021. In this candid interview, Patel lamented that, although Trump declassified his House Intel Committee investigation of the so-called “Intelligence Community Assessment”, it somehow remained classified.
Not for long, I would wager (assuming at least one copy has escaped the shredder). I would guess this may be Gabbard’s next step as she moves to fix intelligence analysis.
For example, she may wish to follow up on Patel’s earlier study by interviewing one Michael van Landingham, an intelligence analyst who is proud of having written the first draft of the cornerstone “analysis” of Russiagate; that’s right, I mean that “Intelligence Community Assessment.”
Last August, I wrote on his crowing about his role. The headline was: “Decay, Decrepitude, Deceit in Journalism.” I should have added … and in Intelligence.
In sum, DNI Gabbard, with the help of Patel, certainly has her work cut out for her. The good news is that some of the buried bodies are not very deep.
[…]
Via https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/11/ray-mcgovern-gabbard-defangs-ex-intel-officials/
USAID orders mass shredding of documents
FILE PHOTO © AP / Heribert ProepperRT
A senior official the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington’s primary channel for sending money to causes abroad, has reportedly directed remaining staff to destroy sensitive documents stored at the agency’s former headquarters, Politico has claimed, citing an internal email.
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who leads the recently established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have repeatedly accused USAID of misusing taxpayer money and fostering corruption. As part of broader efforts to cut federal spending, the agency was forced to lay off 2,000 employees and place most of the remaining staff on leave.
Acting executive secretary Erica Carr has reportedly instructed remaining staff to convene on Tuesday for an “all-day” effort to clear out classified safes and personnel documents at the Ronald Reagan Building. She advised employees to prioritize shredding documents and to use burn bags sparingly.
“Shred as many documents as possible first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” the email read. “The only labeling required on the burn bags is the phrase ‘SECRET’ and ‘USAID/(B/IO)’ in dark Sharpie if possible. If you need additional burn bags or Sharpie markers, please let me or the SEC InfoSec team know.”
The email did not specify a reason for the destruction of the documents. However, the building is being vacated following mass layoffs, as US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently rented 390,000 square feet of office space in the facility.
The directive has raised concerns among former USAID staff and legal experts, who argue that it could violate federal record-keeping laws and potentially hinder ongoing lawsuits challenging the agency’s restructuring.
“Destruction of evidence is a crime,” Musk wrote on X in response to reports of the latest document purge. The billionaire previously called USAID a “criminal organization,” while Trump has claimed it was mismanaged by “radical lunatics.”
The handling of documents at USAID has already been under scrutiny. Last month, two of the agency’s security officials were placed on administrative leave after allegedly refusing to grant a team of DOGE auditors access to classified materials.
The Trump administration plans to eliminate 90% of USAID contracts, amounting to $54 billion, AP reported last month, citing an internal White House memo and court filings. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has also had its government funding frozen. Although officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit that distributes grants to pro-democracy initiatives abroad, the NED has long faced allegations of acting as a CIA front for regime change operations.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/614056-usaid-shred-burn-documents/
Peggy Hall Calls Out MAGA Supporters of RFK Jr. Who Still Defend Him
Graphic by Peggy Hall.
Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
It is truly amazing how so many people in the “Health Freedom Movement” who opposed the COVID shots, are now continuing to support Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and his pro-vaccine agenda.
After his editorial on Fox News supporting the deadly MMR vaccines, some “big names” in the movement have taken it upon themselves to criticize people like myself who continue to publish the truth about RFK Jr. as he endorses the CDC Child Immunization schedule.
The latest names are Dr. Elizabeth Vliet, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger. I have intentionally hyperlinked their names so you can click on them and see all the fine articles I have written about these people over the years, as they warned people about the dangers of vaccines.
But now they are turning against anyone who criticizes their hero, RFK Jr., and his pro-vaccine agenda.
Peggy Hall has just written an article and published a video in response, as she too has taken heat for calling out those who continue to support RFK Jr.
Hall correctly articulates the issue: This is not about “whose side are you on,” it is about whether or not your support the TRUTH.
[…]
Via https://vaccineimpact.com/2025/peggy-hall-calls-out-maga-supporters-of-rfk-jr-who-still-defend-him/
Homeless in LA
Homeless in LA
RT (2024)
Film Review
https://en.rtdoc.tv/films/1188-homeless-in-la
According to this film, roughly 10 million Californians lack stable housing, some despite working two to three jobs. This represents an increase of 12% since 2023. In Los Angeles, known as America’s homeless capitol, there are 80,000 “unhoused” living in LA. Some live in their cars, some couch surf and some live on the streets. Third world visitors are shocked to see homeless tents lining the streets on so many Los Angeles streets, especially in Hollywood.
Nearly all analysts link California homelessness to the skyrocketing cost of housing. Renting a single room in Los Angeles runs around $1400 a month and a studio apartment $3,500-4000. Sadly a November 2024 citizens referendum to enact rent control was defeated, thanks to a massive media campaign by the California Apartment Association (representing wealthy landlords)
Most agree that the Covid lockdowns caused the biggest increase in homelessness. Prior to Covid, the homeless were required to take their tents down during the day.
The film features interviews with a representative of a non-profit group providing free portable showers for LA’s homeless, the manager of a free food pantry serving large numbers of the city’s homeless and a dozen LA residents living on the streets. About one-third are mentally ill and another third have jobs. There are also large numbers of disabled veterans and seniors living in cars because social security benefits are too low to cover rent.
The mentally ill end up on the streets because affordable outpatient mental health services. It’s typically for hospitals to treat them for three days and then discharge them to the streets. Recently a Nevada state hospital dumped 500 of their mentally ill patients in Tucson, 500 in Sacramento and 500 on skid row in LA.
The food pantry manager blames California’s broken foster care system, which suspends all aid to kids removed from troubled homes at age 21. Approximately 70% of foster children become homeless at some point. They are also at high risk for addiction, mental illness and imprisonment.
The filmmakers follow one homeless couple through their day. They offer tips on making signs for “spangling” (panhandling using a sign) and begging for food at outdoor restaurants. Some offer unusually sophisticated explanations for their predicament, eg the growing number of billionaires and their growing control over a government that no longer serves the interests of working people.
Most LA homeless look to private charities, rather than government, for help, as it can take more than a decade to qualify for government subsidized housing. The filmmakers visit Skid Row Rescue, run by a Christian charity receiving limited government subsidies. It currently houses 600, mainly families with children. They also visit a low rent building owned by a non-profit housing group
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
