<![CDATA[UK military to allow trans-identified male service members into female-only accommodations]]>
This has raised safety concerns and active females in the military say they are uncomfortable with the policy decision, per the Telegraph.

The policy written in JSB 889 states that "as soon as the transition process begins the person should be provided with accommodation that is appropriate to their affirmed gender."

"From the date of transition, the person should also have use of the toilet and changing room facilities appropriate to their affirmed gender. Under no circumstances should a transgender person be expected, after transitioning, to use the facilities of their assigned gender," it continues.

MP Sarah Atherton, who conducted a 2021 report about sexual assault in the military, expressed outrage over the policy and said: "They haven’t thought this through properly."

"Having done extensive work around women in the Armed Forces, I am fully aware of the extent of sexual abuse that has gone on and continues to go on. Women need to have secure accommodation where they feel safe," she added.

The MP explained that "women need safe spaces because of poor sexual behaviour and misuse of power in the military."

One woman serving with the Royal Air Force (RAF) told the Telegraph that the policy is "predatory."

"This policy is unclear and allows predatory men to misuse the policy to continue this abhorrent behaviour," she said.

"Military bases at home are compromised if female spaces are not managed appropriately," she added.

Any Armed Forces member who feels "uncomfortable" sharing accommodations with another member of the armed forces "is able to raise their concerns," which will then be taken into consideration by the chain of command.

However, one service member told the outlet that she had already voiced concerns about a transgender member of the forces joining her squadron to her chain of command, only to have those concerns disregarded.

"You can tell who are predators," so it's not a problem, her manager assured her.]]>
<![CDATA[POSO and LIBBY EMMONS at CPAC: The mainstream media wanted the KC parade shooters to be ‘MAGA’]]> Human Events Daily where they discussed the Kansas City Chiefs Superbowl Parade shooting.

"You can see that this is basically a gang violence situation," Emmons stated.

Both pointed out that Kansas City has been dubbed "killa city" by locals.

However, this incident has not been covered extensively by the mainstream media since it happened. Odd, considering this Superbowl itself was the most watched in history and the Chiefs players, who could've "caught a bullet" in the incident, were at the parade. Not to mention, a dozen children were shot.



"One victim shot in the back of his neck" and the "bullet came through his mouth and then popped out his lip," Posoboec stated.

"The difference is," he said, "the mainstream media doesn't have a narrative that they like. So suddenly, they're doing everything they can to downplay this or they'll blame it on the gun."

Posobiec revealed that his connections in media told him "they wanted it to be someone in a red hat," someone part of MAGA.

"It turns out it's just regular Kansas City violence that goes on in every city in America," he said.

Emmons agreed, "We see this in Chicago, we see it in New York and Boston and Oakland, we see it all over the country. And it's completely ignored by mainstream media. Whenever they talk about mass shooting, somehow they completely ignore the shootings that are going on in our cities downtown, every weekend and every every week."


 ]]>
<![CDATA[ROD THOMSON: Florida Grand Jury’s Covid findings are infuriating, but just the beginning]]> The Florida Grand Jury’s initial report on its Covid findings is more than a week old, contains incriminating findings on a range of Covid responses and has been utterly ignored by the mainstream media outside of Florida — which makes sense in that the media is an unstated culpable character in its devastating findings.

The report puts an official exclamation point on much that has been reported in the intervening years since March 2020, largely in alternative media. Because in those years there has also been zero accountability for any of the institutions that made the ruinous decisions that cost lives, destroyed thousands of small businesses, created enormous emotional distress — including depression and suicidal tendencies — and stunted child development on a mass scale.

But the Grand Jury’s interim findings may mark the beginning of accountability. The Grand Jury says in the report that it has more work it is doing and has the power to hand down criminal indictments if it finds Florida law has been broken. Indictments would be the closest to justice we could get. But the report also can lay the basis for lawmakers to develop new legislation to stop such destructive actions in the future.

The report found what many have come to suspect over the years of disastrous government policy: Lockdowns and mask mandates not only did not work, they caused excess collateral damage; Covid hospitalizations and deaths were inflated; Covid was almost harmless to children and closing schools created excess collateral damage; bureaucrats and public health “experts” ignored decades of research and knowledge in how to handle an airborne contagion.

In a panel convened after the report by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Stanford Professor of Medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said: “CDC and other bodies ignored basic science, used their power to silence scientists that didn’t agree with them, and subverted high-quality evidence to make decisions.”

The results were catastrophic.

The Florida Grand Jury has the power to do two things: Issue indictments for criminal prosecution of Florida law and issue presentments, which are findings of fact. What the jury issued in early February was a presentment, but it also said that its investigation is “nowhere near complete” and is continuing to gather facts on the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots. In no small complication, federal agencies, such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Army refused to cooperate with the jury, which has no power to compel federal agencies to testify.

This leads us to the first finding. The government/medical/media complex memory holed all science preceding March 2020 on lockdowns, masking, school closures and so on. The jury found that there was not a lack of scientific data on what to do, but the decision to ignore the data mountains that existed and around which there was consensus, instead making draconian interventions into private lives while suppressing the use of all nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs).

“...scientific research into NPIs and their consequences did not begin with the outbreak of COVID 19. A wealth of contemporaneous scientific information already existed in major publications that could have informed a much more robust and meaningful response with respect to NPIs, but much of it was ignored or even attacked by mainstream public health and media entities…”

It needs to be remembered that the report does not delve into motives, it is just laying out facts.

Next, the lockdowns at best only served to delay the spread for the period of the lockdown, at the expense of all of society. The costs to businesses were staggering. But what the jury also found was the collateral damage beyond the economic, monetary and dream-crushing of small business owners.

The jury identified depression, suicidal behavior, anxiety and attention deficits as direct results of what it termed “heavy-handed” lockdown policies. And most disastrous, the jury reported that jurisdictions that implemented lockdowns had higher overall excess mortality rates. The damage done by lockdowns is hard to calculate, but adding salt to the wound is to remember the first point above: science and research had already known that lockdowns would be futile to net negatives.

“With respect to lockdowns, there does exist a pattern in the data showing a short-term stabilization of case growth that persists until the lockdown is lifted, followed by months or even years of excess mortality that can partially be attributed to collateral consequences concentrated in the groups at lowest risk from COVID-19 disease.”

Mask mandates were also net counterproductive and their value even when looking only at Covid infections is dubious.

The Cochrane Library in the U.K. collects and synthesizes scientific research data to inform health care decisions using meta-analyses on large numbers of scientific studies. Cochrane is highly respected for its careful analysis. After examining available studies from around the world, including several all-important RCTs (randomized controlled trials) regarding the effectiveness of masks, Cochrane’s researchers concluded in January 2023:

“The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

This was because Covid was an aerosolized virus, spreading and lingering in the air in microscopic drops, all but impossible to block. The jury went on:

“The word ‘aerosol’ and its attendant properties should have become part of the zeitgeist. People should have been told that masks, like any protective device, have limitations. Surgical and cloth masks have limited utility against aerosol particles. Well-fitted N95 masks will protect only the wearer, not anyone else, and only for as long as the filter remains viable and the mask remains dry. It would have underscored the minimal utility of the ubiquitous plastic shielding that persists in the retail and food service sector today.”

So to be clear, cloth masks that were required on children, who were not a risk as we will see below, were of no value in stopping the spread of Covid and even the highly rated healthcare N95/P2 respirators were of limited, short-term value, and then only for the wearer. Social distancing was similarly worthless. Filtration systems and good ventilation would have been the most important priorities, ironically or tragically making outdoors and planes some of the safest places to be.

Both the hospitalization rates and the death rates were inflated at least in part by financial incentives to both hospitals and family members to check the box for Covid. There regularly was no distinction between patients admitted to hospitals or dying from Covid or with Covid.

“...roughly 1.17 million Americans have died from COVID-19 disease. Like the number of total hospitalizations, however, this figure is very likely inflated to some extent with people who died “with” rather than “of” COVID-19 disease in order to financially benefit whatever hospital the person died in. The CARES Act also provides for a “death benefit” of up to $9,000 to the families of those who died from COVID-19 disease.”

This policy, long known, begs the question: Why is a family more worthy of an extra $9,000 in taxpayer money if their family member died of Covid than if their family member died of heart disease or cancer or a car accident? The feds who cooked up this scheme have never explained it, leaving Americans with Occam’s Razor — the simplest and most obvious reason is likely the case: federal officials wanted inflated numbers.

Perhaps the most important data point for determining the uninflated lethality of Covid is the IFR, or Infection Fatality Rate. Once again, this would have been easier and possibly more accurate if the federal government cooperated in any way. But we’ll apply Occam again for why it did not.

“The risk of death is the most salient and obvious risk presented by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. From an epidemiological perspective, it can also be one of the easier risks to compute, provided one starts with the proper inputs.”

The jury used expert testimony and data available to determine as accurate an IFR as possible, and had the data to stratify it by age. This is immensely important because it makes a mockery of the public policies of one size fits all, closing schools, forcing shots on young people and so on.

“...some of the best combined estimates of IFR from 2020 published in scientific journals ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% with a median of 0.27%, or around 2.7 people per 1000.”

“These numbers make it clear that, depending heavily on age, a person’s IFR could be dramatically under or dramatically over the median of 0.27%. Through the lens of these numbers, COVID-19 is statistically almost harmless to children and most adults, with catastrophic IFRs in populations above the age of 65.”

Actually, the age of the person infected with Covid was by far the biggest driver of fatalities, dwarfing comorbidities. For children under 16, the IFR was 0.006 percent, or 6 out of every 100,000 infections. Under 35, it was still only 0.105 percent. But by age 65, the curve bends sharply upward to 1.7 percent and by 85 it is 13 percent.

“Through the lens of these numbers, COVID-19 is statistically almost harmless to children and most adults, with catastrophic IFRs in populations above the age of 65.”

The Florida Grand Jury found that nearly every public health policy foisted on Americans by the government/healthcare/media complex ranged from worthless to extremely damaging. And this is before getting to the shots portion of the Grand Jury's work. It almost feels as though if absolutely no public health steps had been taken at any point, everyone just living as normal, the pandemic would have had better results.

Let’s hope the Florida Grand Jury does not stop its work until it has reported on everything and indicted those it can under Florida law.

Rod Thomson is a former daily newspaper reporter and columnist, Salem radio host and ABC TV commentator, and current Founder of The Thomson Group, a Florida-based political consulting firm. He has eight children and seven grandchildren and a rapacious hunger to fight for America for them. Follow him on Twitter at @Rod_Thomson. Email him at rod@thomsonpr.com.
 ]]>
<![CDATA[JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Donald Trump is a victim of government theft]]> “Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy."
— Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo (1870-1938)

Last week, a New York court ordered the Trump Organization and its principals — including the former President — to forfeit nearly $400 million to the state government. This gargantuan punishment was not for any crime committed or harm caused by the defendants. Rather, it was government theft at its worst.

Here is the backstory.

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo described the basic principles of tort law in one easy line, he was reflecting upon centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. His dictum of wrong first and remedy afterward was essentially based on the common law understanding that an injured party can only seek damages for a wrong actually caused.

The legal and philosophical essence of wrongness is harm. The law does not concern itself with trifles or with theoretical wrongs, but only wrongs that have caused palpable and measurable harm.

The rational corollary to harm first and remedy later is that where there is no harm, there can be no remedy. Were this not the case, then a crazy plaintiff could drag a hapless defendant into court for all sorts of fanciful or theoretical or immeasurable or speculative claims — none of which caused harm.

In tandem with the Cardozoan wrong first and remedy later principle is the causation principle. This teaches that not all wrongdoing justifies a remedy — only those where a duty is owed and breached and where the breach caused measurable damages.

Law students memorize this line: “duty, breach, causation, damages,” as it encapsulates what a plaintiff must prove to a jury in order to obtain a monetary judgment against a culpable defendant.

The causation principle further requires that the breached duty must be one that the defendant owed to the very plaintiff who is seeking damages.

Stated differently, if I punch you in the nose, you can sue me for pain and suffering and permanent injury if there is any. But your sister, who learns later what I did to you, cannot sue me. In this scenario, I owed you a duty not to hit your nose and I breached that duty. And my breach caused you damages and the remedy you properly sought is compensation for the damages.

I also owed a duty not to punch your sister in the nose, but I didn’t breach that duty. Your sister may not like the new appearance of your nose, but I did not breach any duty owed to her, and thus she has no legal or moral basis upon which to sue me.

This is basic Anglo-American tort law as practiced and understood for more than 600 years.

What role does the government play in this scenario? The only moral and constitutional role for government here is to provide a neutral and credible forum for the resolution of the dispute between you and me.

However, were the government to enter the dispute as a litigant or were the government to claim some harm where none existed, it would do violence to these basic legal principles, it would impair my natural and constitutional rights to own property, and, if successful, it would constitute theft for its own benefit.   

Yet, all of this just took place last week in a New York courtroom. The government was the State of New York and the defendants were the Trump Organization and its principals.

How can the government claim harm where none was caused?

The government created a phantom harm by arguing to the court that Trump’s corporation was not fully accurate in its loan applications and thus was charged a lower interest rate on the loans than it should have been charged had it been accurate; and thus it earned more income on its use of the money it borrowed than would have been the case had it scrupulously reported the value of its pledged assets; and thus — somehow — the government ought to be able to confiscate the excess income plus interest.

This, of course, defies the no-damages-without-breach-of-a-duty principle and no-damages-without-caused-harm principle that have been the bedrock of American tort law. It also redefines fraud.

The government told the court that Trump defrauded his lenders by inaccurately stating his assets. If you borrow $100 million from a bank and pledge as security a building worth $2 billion, you will get more favorable loan terms — a lower interest rate — than if you pledged as security a building worth $1 billion. But Trump’s banks did their own due diligence on the value of the assets he pledged, and they told the court that they were satisfied with Trump’s valuations.

The lenders also told the court that Trump paid back every dime they loaned to him with interest. And the banks told the court that Trump was such a good customer, they’d gladly lend to him again.

But the government told the court that Trump defrauded his lenders. Fraud is a material misrepresentation made in order to induce reliance and upon which someone relied to his detriment. The definition of fraud used in the Trump case mysteriously omits the detrimental reliance part of this definition.

Yet, this full definition has been universally accepted for 600+ years. Its purpose is to prevent just what happened here — a stranger to the loan transaction, who did not rely on any of the borrower’s representations, showing up afterward and claiming harm.

What harm?

The government won’t say how it was harmed by Trump’s commercial loans because it wasn’t harmed at all by them. Oh, the government lawyers made a fanciful argument to the effect that if Trump had borrowed less because the buildings pledged as security were worth less than he claimed, the banks would have had more reserves available to lend to others. That is nonsense.

The banks get the cash they lend from the Federal Reserve and Trump did not put the money he borrowed into a shoe box. Rather, it was used to develop New York City real estate and those developments created thousands of new jobs and much new wealth.

By rejecting established legal principles, this case has done more harm to the rule of law than any misstatement of asset worth has done to the banks. The government enacted a statute that permitted it to claim harm where none existed and then steal from a wealthy entity; and a judge — sworn to uphold the Constitution — let the government get away with it.

Why do we put our liberties for safekeeping into the hands of those who destroy them?

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
 ]]>
<![CDATA[Israelis were violently raped by Hamas terrorists in front of family members on Oct 7: report]]>
A report submitted to the UN on Wednesday from the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel (ARCCI) stated that women, children, and men suffered “sadistic” sexual violence both during the invasion of Israel and as hostages of Hamas. 

According to the report, “Many cases involve heinous attacks on women and girls, including a case of hiding a knife in a genital organ. The brutal practices used on October 7, such as genital mutilation of girls, women, and men, shooting, and weapon insertion, were designed to destroy and inflict sadistic terror.”

Hamas terrorists “hunted young women and men who fled the Nova festival” and “dragged them by their hair amid screams,” according to the report, and many of the victims were killed “after or during the rape.”

One witness said: “There were girls there whose pelvises were simply broken from being raped so much,” and men were found with their appendages cut off and bullet wounds that were aimed toward their genitals.

Those who assisted in the rescue and recovery of the bodies told the ARCCI that “many bodies arriving partially clothed or unclothed” had “heavy bleeding from the pelvic area and mutilation of genital organs.”

Weapons were found in women’s genitals including nails, knives and grenades. Some of the bodies were even “booby-trapped.”

According to the report, approximately 90 percent of the sexual violence victims were “raped in front of an audience, such as partners, family, or friends, to increase the pain and humiliation for all present.”]]>
<![CDATA[UK police officer who called himself ‘the devil’ convicted of 13 rapes]]>
24-year-old Cliff Mitchell told one of his victims that she'd "met the devil" as he was kidnapping her in September 2023. He approached her with a knife and demanded she put her hands behind her back before tying her up with cable ties and duck-taping her mouth, Daily Mail reports.

"He was found guilty of 10 counts of rape, three counts of rape of a child under 13, one count of kidnap and breach of a non-molestation order following a trial at Croydon Crown Court," according to the outlet.

Another one of his victims said he forced her and another person to get into his car. She escaped after saying she felt sick and needed to get out. A good samaritan who saw her running through traffic allowed her to get in their vehicle as she called the emergency line.

Mitchell was a serving officer in the Met's West Area Basic Command Unit when most of his offenses were committed. He was released in December 2023 after a misconduct hearing.

After he was arrested, police found cable ties in a bag at an address linked to him.

In 2017, Mitchell was subject to a rape investigation involving a young girl which resulted in no further action. However, after his arrest, the case was reopened and he was charged with 6 additional counts of rape between 2014 and 2017.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy said Mitchell's actions were "deplorable."
 

"This is a truly shocking case and I am sickened by Mitchell's abhorrent behaviour and the pain he has caused the victims, who have shown enormous bravery by coming forward and giving evidence in court," he said.

"It is down to their courage that he has been convicted and faces a significant custodial sentence.

"I would also like to recognise the brave member of the public who came to the aid of one of the victims as she ran from Mitchell's car.

"Mitchell not only carried out a sustained campaign of abuse against both of his victims, but he told one of them she would never be believed due to the fact he was a police officer.

"This brazen abuse of power makes Mitchell's actions all the more deplorable.

"I know this is another case which will impact the confidence people have in us.

"We are doing more than we have done in decades to rid the Met of those who corrupt our integrity, including investing millions of pounds into our professional standards team and bringing in additional officers and staff with specialist skills and experience to investigate criminality and misconduct.

"Part of that is dismissing officers who should not be here at the earliest opportunity.

"Mitchell was dismissed from the Met in December 2023 - we did not wait for his conviction today."

]]>
<![CDATA[Woman sentenced to prison for ‘transphobic’ posts about prostitute in Spain]]>
The unnamed woman posted the comments in 2020 in which she called Violeta Ferrer Mico a "prototype of a faggot with tits" and said "he can't stand that I'm a woman and has a pathological dislike for me."

The post was shared to Ferrer Mico's WhatsApp work chat after which he claimed he was "outed" and that no one knew he was transgender prior to the woman's comments.

Reduxx uncovered a statement then made by Ferrer Mico that said: "From then on, I felt I had to give explanations about my gender identity."

He reported the post and then filed a criminal complaint. 

A Barcelona court ordered an "internet radicalism" task force to parse through the woman's social media history to find further “publications that indicate animosity towards the group to which the victim belongs.”

They determined in their report that the woman was “not only belligerent with transgender women who are not operated, but also with the LGTBI collective.”

According to them, she had also posted multiple statements across Facebook, Instagram and X in which she "denied transgender people without genital reassignment the gender with which they identify.”

She had also made statements like "there are only two sexes", "transwomen are transvestites" and said that “[the trans] community makes me feel infinite disgust.”

The task force stated in their evidence that her comments were in opposition of the "Trans Law" which was passed in Spain to "make changing an individual's legal name and gender marker significantly easier."

The court ruled that the “transphobic messages” led to Ferrer Mico, who once organized a Barcelona "Trans Whoretour," being "exposed" as a trans-identified male.

During sentencing, it said: “The derogatory statements regarding gender identity … reflect the contempt she feels towards the group of transgender people who have not undergone genital reassignment surgery, and show, by questioning the gender (of the victim), a clear desire to inflict ridicule, and managing to generate [in the victim] feelings of humiliation to the detriment of [his] dignity.”

The woman accepted the sentence and declined to defend herself. She must also pay Ferrer Mico 3,850 Euros and is disqualified from holding employment in any profession in the fields of teaching or sports for three and a half years.]]>
<![CDATA[PASTOR BRADLEY J. HELGERSON: Fear is trumping faith on the transgender issue]]>  spoke out against a new public mural promoting transgender ideology in my town—one painted by middle school students—I knew the consequences could be significant. I knew my church (The Church on the Square) might lose its lease at the theater we rented, which it did within a few days. I knew county officials might further punish our dissent by prohibiting us from using the courthouse lawn as a temporary meeting place, which they did after a few weeks. I knew that our requests for tenancy from local businesses would likely be ignored for fear of political reprisals, and they were in discouraging numbers. I even knew that some of our more desperate detractors might try to harm me personally, which they did with threats of physical violence, destruction of property, and ostracization from the community. What I did not anticipate, and what has proven most dispiriting, is the tepid response of my fellow Christians to this plight: a willingness to offer condolences but little else.   
 
It would be a year of being tossed to and fro before a fellow church would agree to shelter us from this ideological storm.  A concession that came after a four-month vetting (“discernment”) process that included me attending an open business meeting where I answered pointed questions about the mural for over an hour. Nevertheless, as tentative as it was, this show of solidarity refreshed our wearied congregation. A season of rest that ended abruptly, however, when after seven months (on the eve of advent), our good Samaritans terminated our lease.    
 
Part of the reason for our eviction had to do with a poster that one of our congregants brandished at a recent Pride event, which read: "Children can't consent to sterilization or mastectomy." The sign was prominently featured on social media and our local paper's website. Apparently, the inflammatory nature of its message (and others like it) was more than our brethren could countenance. And so, once again, we were left to wander the secular wilderness in search of a better homeland.    
 
This experience awakened me to the reality that many Evangelical churches, even in the Deep South, are deeply compromised. Where on the one hand, they affirm the scriptures teaching concerning human sexuality and gender yet, on the other, refuse to defend those views publicly. Fearing that it will tarnish their reputation in the community or, perhaps, offend influential members, they bury such doctrines in their statements of faith and never mention them again. And when challenged on their silence, they often punt to evangelism, warning that moralizing over sins like transgenderism will needlessly offend gospel prospects and therefore compromise the church’s witness. For the sake of the good news, it seems, we must remain silent as children are butchered.
 
Does it not seem rather incongruous that the best way to win souls to righteousness is to neglect it? Do we really want to say that the illuminating power of the Spirit is so impotent that it must be shielded from every ethical framework? And what kind of macabre message would require children to be sacrificed just to be found appealing, anyway?
 
The end of the gospel is peace on earth, a peace which comes when “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” Must we not demonstrate such justice in order to win people to it? Isn’t what we win souls with what we win them to, as A. W Tozer once said?
 
Such cowardly compromise reminds me of the “white moderates” who, during the Civil Rights movement, supported Martin Luther King in principle but criticized his method because it caused “needless” offense among segregationists. In a blistering critique, King declared such lukewarm supporters to be the greatest liability to black liberation because they “were more devoted to order than to justice,” preferring “a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.” Similar opprobrium could be directed at the “white moderates” of our day, the winsome pastors who undermine those working to liberate children from the prevailing principalities and powers even though they agree with them in principle. Their concern for the fragile sensibilities of unbelievers is just a cover for a deeper need to maintain order” and “peace” at any cost.    
 
For my part, I think the matter is, as Ronald Reagan said, not easy, but simple: Either my fellow Christians believe the teaching of scripture, or they do not. Either it is God’s word, or it isn’t. Either I and my fellow Christians have an obligation to protect the widow and orphan (the most vulnerable among us), or we do not.

If we do, we better become doers of the word and not hearers only. For God’s judgment concerning such matters will be severe, and it will begin with the household of faith. And for my more secular readers, remember: cancel culture wants to come for you, too. Believers like me are just in the way.
 
Bradley J. Helgerson serves as Minister of the Word for The Church on the Square in Georgetown, Texas. His teaching can be found on X @BradleyJHelger1 and YouTube @TheChurchontheSquare1540.
 ]]>
<![CDATA[HUMAN EVENTS: The Left will destroy itself trying to destroy Trump]]> In Robert Bolt’s iconic play A Man For All Seasons, the protagonist, St. Thomas More, asks William Roper, “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?” Roper responds enthusiastically, “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More’s response is deservedly quoted everywhere:

“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

There has perhaps been no better time to recall these words than now, when Democrats have apparently decided that they are willing to cut down every law in the United States to get their “devil” of choice: Donald Trump. The most recent evidence of this is the absurdly large $350 million verdict against Trump in New York City by Judge Arthur Engoron.

Human Events contributor Vox Clamantis has already pointed out that the decision resembles medieval justice – or even Soviet “justice” – more than anything recognizably American, and so it does. Jacqueline Toboroff writes that the decision is part of a pattern showing Democrats as determined to destroy Trump as Vladimir Putin was to destroy Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, and so it is. Rehearsing the flaws of this absurd bit of #Resistance theater masquerading as a legal opinion, which persecutes Trump for a non-crime with no victim and then charges him more simply for not saying he’s sorry like a good boy, is redundant by now. However, what is not redundant is pointing something out that Thomas More (by way of Robert Bolt) correctly asked his day’s zealots: can today’s Leftist zealots really stand upright in the ensuing wind?

That’s not an idle question. Thanks to the wise decision by the Founding Fathers to ban so-called “bills of attainder” (IE laws explicitly targeted at a single individual), no legal decision exists in isolation. All decisions of this kind are precedents: precedents which, if applied to one, also apply to others.

Which is why you see responses to this verdict from the likes of famous investor Kevin O’Leary, who told Fox’s Neil Cavuto, “Every investor is very worried, because where is the victim? Who lost money? This is an arbitrary decision a judge made, this policy, what does this say about the bar, the legal bar in New York? Aren't they going to question this judge? What is this? $355 million as a penalty and plus interest at 9% and no victim? I mean, I'm sorry, [NY Gov. Hochul's] words fall on deaf ears to everybody, there's nothing she can say to justify this decision. It has nothing to do with Trump, forget about Trump, this is not a Trump situation, this is a New York problem now the whole world is looking at this, saying what are you doing to yourselves?”

O’Leary’s warning has not fallen on deaf ears. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has already begun frantically trying to downplay the decision. Her reasoning is not reassuring.

“I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul said. “By and large, [business owners] are honest people, and they’re not trying to hide their assets, and they’re following the rules.”

This is an extraordinary statement, mostly because of its comical insufficiency. First of all, the number of weasel words in it could fill an entire zoo. We’d be surprised if even the average bodega owner in New York is a completely “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorker,” not due to criminality, but simply due to how confusing the law in New York is. As just one example, even the New York State Bar Association seems confused about the law surrounding firing employees for out-of-office political speech. If the organization which credentials lawyers in the state isn’t sure about an issue that big, then how can any business owner know for sure if they’re a “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorker?” And that’s not even touching on the question of how many of those laws are even constitutional.

But unlike Arthur Engoron, we’ll be generous and assume that such a thing as a “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorker who is a businessperson” exists in the wild. Hochul’s message to those people is, essentially, “Don’t worry, we know you’re honest people, unlike Donald Trump.”

First of all, how can Hochul know about that other businesspeople in her state are honest? She can’t. How do we know? Because if you assume Engoron’s verdict is correct (again, wildly overgenerous, but we’ll accept it for the sake of argument), then Trump’s business empire was allowed to operate for decades in New York City without anyone so much as batting an eye until Trump became an enemy of the local political machine. If that happened, then there is no way on earth that Hochul can state with confidence that she knows how many businesses in New York are completely honest brokers, let alone that all of them except Trump are. It’s absurd.

We don’t bring this up to be pedantic. It’s important for understanding the second, and most vital point, which is that once you cut through the disingenuous weasel words and flattery, both of which are completely detached from reality, Hochul’s reasoning amounts to, “Don’t worry, we won’t go after you. You’re not Donald Trump.”

Fair enough. Only Donald Trump is Donald Trump. But why was Donald Trump targeted? Obviously, because he is a political enemy of Hochul and her party. Which naturally leads to the question: what if you voted for Donald Trump? What if you gave him money? What then? Will Hochul seek to punish anyone and everyone who might be a Trump ally? If not, why not, given her evident belief that Trump is a fraudster? Will every business that works in New York have to monitor its employees to make sure none of them give to the wrong political party, for fear of touching off a victimless inquisition from the Commissar-esque State Attorney General? Saying “you’re not Donald Trump so you have nothing to worry about” is about as reassuring, in other words, as the Stasi saying “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.”

And look, while we love driving trucks through the holes in Kathy Hochul’s arguments, this is not really about her, or at least not only about her. The American Left has, in the past few years, followed torturous, authoritarian interpretations of the law, which would, if applied consistently, result in the extinction of practically all politics.

They have tried to argue that any president who violates the “interagency consensus” must be impeached, even though this would subject any Leftist president to removal by a less Leftist civil service.

They have tried to argue that any protest which disrupts official government proceedings is an “insurrection” which would bar the culprit from holding office, even though this would cut off huge numbers of their own activists who participated in the so-called 2020 “summer of love.”

They have tried to criminalize public protestations of innocence as “obstruction of justice,” even though this would essentially criminalize the very existence of the Defense bar.

And now, they have decided that a business can be persecuted by a state government – and fined to the point of ruination – even if that business has done nothing to harm its investors or customers.

Which raises the obvious question: is it any wonder that people like Kevin O’Leary are starting to get nervous about doing business in blue states, not necessarily because they are liberal, but because today’s Left are so anxious to warp the law every which way to get whoever the villain of the day on MSNBC is, that they will abandon any principle, even liberal ones? Is it any wonder that businesses – including Wall Street Banks – are fleeing the bluest states in the union? This is the fruit of cutting down the law to get Trump, or white cis men, or whoever the Left’s mental illness industrial complex decides to hate: no business owner, and no informed citizen, wants to have their rights and obligations subject to the question of whether an entire political party has gone off its meds. It wasn’t so long ago that “Woke Capital” was a real fear on the Right, but that alliance only worked when wokeness left capital alone on all but the most performative issues. Now, woke hatred for its targets is driving the wedge which conservatives fervently prayed would exist.

In short, in the name of a momentary high from “getting Trump,” the Left is turning the states it controls into miserable husks which bleed capital and people. Not, of course, that we expect the Left to care: it’s been obvious for some time that they resent the idea that they should have to coexist with anyone who doesn’t already agree with their entire catechism (and doesn’t seamlessly change their opinions along whenever that catechism does). But the people who live in their states might care, and more importantly, we somehow doubt the Democratic party want to confront an America where the only people left in their electoral strongholds are the residents of Park Slope and San Francisco: not exactly the stuff of large amounts of electoral votes, that. We don’t mind the Left destroying themselves, of course, but we do mind them destroying great states with proud histories in the process. We only hope that the actual “rule-following, law-abiding people” in those states decide to stand up and say “enough” before they are all forced into exile.

]]>
<![CDATA[WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange too unwell to attend extradition appeal hearing, hundreds protest outside]]> Julian Assange was too unwell to attend his appeal hearing to stop his extradition from the UK to the US, London High Court judges heard Tuesday.

52-year-old Assange faces up to 175 years in prison for espionage after distributing classified US government documents on his website. If convicted in the US, he would likely die behind bars.

Daily Mail reports that hundreds of protesters were gathered outside of the court house, including his wife Stella, who addressed the crowd in a speech.

"We have two big days ahead. We don't know what to expect, but you are here because the world is watching," she said. "They have to know they can't get away with this. Julian needs his freedom and we all need the truth."

"Please keep on showing up, be there for Julian and for us, until Julian is free," she added.

"The situation is extremely grave. He could be on a plane within days," she had said in previous comments. "His health is in decline, mentally and physically. His life is at risk every single day he stays in prison, and if he's extradited, he will die."

Two judges heard from lawyers representing Assange on how he is being prosecuted for an "ordinary journalistic practice."

Mark Summers KC (King's counsel) detailed an alleged plan to poison or kidnap Assange while he was sheltering at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for around 7 years: "What the evidence now shows is that the US developed a plan to try to either kill or rendition Mr Assange to the USA."


"What evidence the district judge heard on that came from protected witness two and it was truly breathtaking."

"With respect to the district judge, there were red flags everywhere."

He said that the plan "only fell apart when the UK authorities weren't very keen on the thought of rendition, or a shootout, in the streets of London."

Lawyer Edward Fitzgerald KC said that Assange would face a trial with "tainted evidence" and jurors who are "prejudiced irretrievably by public denunciations of him made by the President downwards," referring to Joe Biden.

"He is being prosecuted for engaging in ordinary journalistic practice of obtaining and publishing classified information, information that is both true and of obvious and important public interest," he argued.
 ]]>
<![CDATA[JACK POSOBIEC: The 2024 presidential election is ‘the state vs Donald J Trump’]]> Human Events Daily.

"So lawfare is the new COVID," he explained. "President Trump isn't running against Joe Biden, President Trump is running against lawfare."

He added that "in 2020, Trump's real opponent wasn't Joe Biden, it was COVID" as well as "election fraud" and that "this was a great benefit for Biden for a number of reasons, chief among which he had an excuse to not criss-cross the country and stay in his basement all year."

However, going into the 2024 election, Posobiec stated, Biden will have problems due to his lack of mental and physical fitness. "He physically can't criss-cross the country in campaign the way Trump is about to," he said. Trump has been holding rallies across the country, often holding two events in different states on the same day.



Trump's strategy seems to be "making the story of Trump versus the state be the entire story of 2024" and not even bringing up Biden, Posobiec said.

"The average person" does not care about what the regime is concocting against the former president, Posobiec stated.

"The average person says, 'Why are you trying so hard to get this guy, you're making up crimes, you're making up these ridiculous claims against him, giving him ridiculous exorbitant sums for stuff that's either old or stuff that's been talked about a million times, and it's obvious,'" he continued.

Posobiec concluded: "Your President Biden can't run the country. He can't even campaign. Even if Trump is found guilty in one of these trials. It's not going to have the same political effect and it's been his strategy."

Watch the full episode below.


 ]]>
<![CDATA[Elon Musk nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian MP for ‘free speech’ efforts]]> Elon Musk has been nominated by a Norwegian MP for the Nobel Peace Prize because of him being a "stout proponent of free speech" and "enabling" Ukraine to communicate after the war broke with Russia.  



Marius Nilsen, MP for Norway's libertarian Progress Party, nominated the Tesla and X owner for his "adamant defense of dialogue, free speech and [enabling] the possibility to express one's views' in a continuously more polarized world." 

Nilsen also credited his decision to Musk helping Ukrainian forces communicate with the abilities of Starlink in the midst of the war, according to the Daily Mail.  

"The multitude of tech companies Musk has founded, owns or runs, aimed at bettering societies, increasing knowledge of both earth and space, in addition to enabling communication and connectivity globally... has helped make the world a more connected and safer place," the MP added.  

The organization which awards the prizes accepts nominations for anybody who has a certain qualification which includes working in the government or in academia.  

During 2024, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize will be selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The group consists of five anonymous individuals appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.  

Nilsen revealed to the outlet that he was nominating Musk. In his arguments to nominate Musk, he said, "Man can, and will only evolve and find together when difference of opinions are sharpened in dialogue with critical thinkers and opposing views." 

"Echo chambers and yes-people do not bring forth the best ideas and cooperation, but decline and regression. Complementary views, opinions and processes of thoughts unlocks the best ideas."

]]>
<![CDATA[OLIVER GHORBANIFAR: When will America liberate Canada from the evil reign of Justin Trudeau?]]> In the chilling dystopia that has become the nation of Canada, a malevolent force has risen to power, unleashing unspeakable cruelties upon a formerly placid and peaceful nation. 

This force has a name: Justin Pierre James Trudeau.

The stories emerging from this nightmarish regime detail a gruesome new reality where state-sponsored euthanasia of the vulnerable and the brutal suppression of free speech and basic human rights have become the norm. 

It is high time for the international community, particularly the United States of America, to confront the moral imperative, intervene, and finally liberate the Canadian people from the clutches of this evil regime.

This is all the more true now that, as it appears, likely former President Donald J. Trump will win the presidency this fall. An event that would allow for basic sanity and decency to once again return to the White House, attributes that will hopefully compel Trump to take significant action against the criminal Trudeau regime.

Although Trump has long been a skeptic of foreign interventions (and with good reason), the case of Trudeau’s Canada is genuinely a horse of a different color. 

For the simple fact that Canada, unlike Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, shares a border with the U.S. and therefore falls precisely within America’s sphere of influence. Unlike in other parts of the world, what happens in Canada directly impacts the United States. This is especially true when it comes to the brutal abuse of Canadian citizens at the hands of the brutal thug Justin Trudeau. 

In addition, the Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P), a concept endorsed by the United Nations, asserts that when a government fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and abuses, the international community has a duty to intervene. 

The tragic case of Canada, a close neighbor and ally, now stands as a stark reminder that the world cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities committed within its own backyard. 

The United States, as a beacon of freedom and democracy, must heed this call to conscience and finally act decisively.

Trudeau’s regime has crossed the most sacred lines of humanity, implementing a grotesque form of eugenics through the euthanasia of the poor, the elderly, and the sick.

This is not only a violation of basic human rights but also an affront to the core values that the United States and its allies hold dear. 

The U.S. can no longer afford to remain silent in the face of such atrocities; to do so would be a betrayal of the principles that underpin our collective commitment to the sanctity of life and the very concept of inalienable rights upon which our country was founded.

Crushing internal dissent by censoring free speech and brutally cracking down on peaceful protests, Trudeau has created an environment of genuine terror, silencing the voices of those who dare to resist his increasingly deranged rule.

The suppression of fundamental freedoms and the erosion of basic human values demand a response from the international community, led by the United States. If we continue to allow such tyranny to fester unchecked, we risk the contagion of Trudeau’s poisonous ideology spreading and even the undermining of the very foundations of our own democracy. 

Indeed, there is a case to be made that the most genuinely dangerous threat to the American people comes not from authoritarian leaders in faraway lands but from Trudeau’s own brand of radical liberalism, which is as fanatically held and brutally imposed as the beliefs of even the ardent Islamic theocrats and has an increasing number of adherents here in the United States within our own Democratic party.

The strategy for U.S. intervention should be multi-faceted, employing diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military measures. 

Diplomatically, the United States should rally international support through organizations like the United Nations, appealing to the shared commitment to human rights and the responsibility to protect. Building a coalition of nations willing to condemn Trudeau’s regime and take collective action will be extremely helpful for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the intervention. 

Economically, targeted sanctions against key individuals and entities that continue to support the Trudeau regime could potentially help cripple its financial resources. 

Thus, the U.S. should work closely with its allies to freeze assets and cut off financial support for Trudeau and his loyalists. 

In addition, the U.S. must immediately begin sending armaments to moderate Canadian rebels, such as the brave groups of dissident truckers whose series of peaceful protests Trudeau brutally crushed by force.

Direct military intervention by the Trump administration, while a last resort, may become necessary if diplomatic and economic measures fail to halt the atrocities. 

The U.S. and its allies should carefully plan and execute a mission aimed at dismantling the oppressive regime, ensuring the safety of the Canadian people, and establishing a pathway to a stable and democratic government in the aftermath of the conflict.

A conflict that should be short-lived given the current state of the Canadian military.

The U.S. cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the nightmare unfolding in Canada under the rule of this thug, and it has a direct interest in ensuring that its northern neighbor is not dominated by the whims of a cruel and desperate authoritarian. 

The incoming Trump administration must immediately undertake a coordinated effort to liberate the Canadian people from the clutches of Trudeau's sick regime and ensure that the principles of justice and freedom prevail over the forces of liberal tyranny once and for all.

]]>
<![CDATA[VOX CLAMANTIS: Engoron’s decision was medieval persecution, not justice]]>
Comrade People’s Judge Arthur Engoron (the name suggests he escaped from the pages of a Kurt Vonnegut novel – it does rhyme with Harrison Bergeron. Etymologists have not yet ruled out if it is a corrupt derivation of the elision of “ignorant moron.”) has denied the Constitution. More specifically, he has denied the purpose and aims of law, of the common law system in the Anglo-American tradition of jurisprudence, and he has denied many of the individual constitutional rights guaranteed to Donald Trump and his businesses and family members.

How do we know all this? By reading his (92 page!) opinion and order entered in the New York State Supreme Court this past Friday, February 16, 2024. I read it, so you don’t have to. And if you take away nothing else from this or any other view of the opinion, be sure of this: Donald Trump and his family committed no crime.

There was no crime, absolutely and certainly, most tellingly because we see and know that this case was brought as a civil complaint. It is NOT a criminal case. This is no small detail, given that we all know that if they could have made a true criminal prosecution – they would have; the desire to undo this former President is just so obsessively intense with these miscreant “public servants.”

What then does a civil complaint of any kind (they are usually contract or tort suits) entail? Well, almost always it requires that somebody claim and show they have been harmed. And no true plaintiff is present in this case, as there is no one who claims they lent money to the Trump Organization and were not repaid, or that Trump was bound by contractual promise to do something which he did not. Everyone entered into business lending agreements, everyone got their money, lent at first and repaid with interest at the end. Where is the harm? Or as the classical law saying goes, all the way back to ancient Roman jurisprudence: Damnum non fit inuria. There is no fault where there has been no injury.

It seems like common sense, and in legal terms it is so basic that it is a longstanding tenet of fair practice and procedure – just like the principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. [Though remember, we are talking about civil cases here, and there is no guilt or criminal stigma involved.]  It is in fact firmly ensconced in our Constitution and law as the principle of Due Process of Law.

Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron is a New York state court judge. He presumably knows and should follow the state Constitution of New York, which compels its own mandate of Due Process of Law. One New York law treatise calls due process “the principal constitutional restraint on potential excesses of state judicial power.” We see exactly why in this case.

The federal Constitution also applies to the New York State courts, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution: No State may deprive any person of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law. The Fourteenth Amendment also incorporates the provision of the Fifth Amendment, that no government may take private property for public use without just compensation. And every United States person including Donald Trump is entitled through the Fourteenth Amendment to the full Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the United States. And Article I, section 10 of the original text of the Constitution further commands that no State shall pass any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law.

But none of that matters to Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron. This commissar has taken it upon himself to subjectively condemn Trump for the non-crime of a non-injury to … the State? Because no private party, no bank or lender or insurance company, saw any loss or harm, there is no true plaintiff in this case. Instead, the Attorney General (or should we say the People’s High Procurator) Letitia James initiated this persecution, in fulfillment of her election campaign promises. New York law, as Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron began in his opinion, empowers an Attorney General to bring this kind of enforcement action, absent any specified complainant or victim, in an injunction suit with ability to obtain restitution and damages from someone alleged to have committed repeated business fraud. Tellingly the law is part of the Executive Law of New York State – an enhancement of executive prerogative of the government to act of its own will without regard to law or the individual.

Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron considered the law amply justified because “In mid-twentieth century New York, to judge by contemporary press reports and judicial opinions, fraudsters were having a field day.” Well Okay, then. By this law, Comrade Procurator James launched the investigation into all of the Trump Organization’s business dealings, looking for anything to make Lavrenti Beria proud.   

In September 2023, Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron entered Summary Judgment that Trump was liable on the first count of false statements in business records, precisely because the requirement of damages to another party is, in Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron’s august opinion, NOT a necessary element of the NY Executive Law offense. Next came witnesses on both sides, “summarized” in 70 pages. If a witness contravened the State, Comrade People’s Judge Engoron found their “credibility was compromised” or the testimony “did not conform to” a State witness’s account of events.

Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron decreed the law as to Trump. The burden of proof was the lowest standard, a mere preponderance of the evidence -- 50% plus anything. Engoron denied a higher “clear and convincing” standard should apply, because that standard applies only when a case “involves the denial of, addresses, or adjudicates fundamental personal or liberty rights.” Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron cannot understand constitutional rights as anything other than an abortion.

Engoron found no need to show reliance on the purportedly false statements of financial conditions; the Peoples Judge just knew in his heart, that Trump and his companies had bad intent. Along with reliance, Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron denied any issue of materiality, because it “has been one of the great red herrings of this case all along.” Channeling Justice Potter Stewart, Engoron “knew [fraud] when he saw it,” and the “frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience.” Good to know. Comrade Peoples Judge could arbitrarily decree, “any number that is at least 10% off [from whatever Engoron thinks is correct] could be deemed ‘material,’ and any number that is at least 50% off would likely be deemed material.” Comrade Engoron should go into retail sales with a genius like that for at least 50% off. Maybe he could become as rich as Donald Trump.

The remaining causes of action are all conspiracy. “Conspiracy” is a criminal concept, and this is a civil case. Conspiracy requires an agreement and intent to break the law, coupled with at least one “overt act” to further the common aim or goal. This should not be necessary for Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron. But a conspiracy “so immense” condemns all the corporate legal entities of the Trump businesses. That’s Where the Money Is.

And finally we see the true motives of this show trial. For Comrade Peoples Judge Engoron the worst Trump wrongdoing is “complete lack of contrition and remorse … defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”

“Repent!” cried both Savonarola and Torquemada, yet the innocent persist in appearing totally uncontrite and resistant to the zealots who prejudge and pursue them. It kinda bugs them, I think, not receiving their victims’ adulation and respect.

The Executive Law permits Comrade Peoples Judge to award restitution, hundreds of millions of dollars. But with no damage or loss, who gets that money? The State, of course, salivating with glee.

In Medieval times, the monarch had a subject of his envy imprisoned, tried, and disgorged of his wealth. Heirs lost too; this was Corruption of Blood.  Parliament could pass a bill addressing one specific individual, the Bill of Attainder, to seize the assets for their benefit. King Philip of France had the Knights Templar tortured in all manner of ways, expropriating their wealth to escape his large debts. Except for the Barons who forced King John to sign Magna Carta at Runnymede, this has always been the fate of the well to do under the absolute ruler. After Engoron’s opinion. NY Governess Kathy Hochul answered a public questioner who wondered If they could do this to Trump, should other business owners be concerned? Hochul answered that this was a one-off situation for Trump, --- thereby admitting to a modern Bill of Attainder.

Welcome to the new age of Neo-Feudalism.

Vox Clamantis is the gender-neutral pen name of a dissident lawyer who has decades of practice experience in BigLaw, medium, small and solo firms, as well as government prosecution of felony crimes. Vox Clamantis writes more on Substack at voxclamantis1789.substack.com
 ]]>
<![CDATA[Ballerina arrested in Russia for ‘high-treason’ over her support for Ukraine]]> Putin's Federal Security Service (FSB) and charged with treason, officials confirmed Tuesday.

32-year-old Ksenia Karelina became a US citizen in 2021 and was residing in Los Angeles with her American husband whom she married in 2023, Daily Mail reports.

She was in Yekaterinburg, where she is from, at the time of her arrest. Karelona was initially apprehended outside of a movie theater for "petty hooliganism" after she was accused of swearing.

After an investigation was conducted on Karelona, she was charged with "high treason" when officials alleged that she transferred $51.80 from an American bank to a Ukrainian charity, Razom.

The ballerina is accused of "proactively collecting funds since February 2022 in the interests of a Ukrainian organization, which were subsequently used to purchase tactical medicine, equipment, weapons and ammunition for the Armed Forces of Ukraine," according to the FSB which added, "In addition, the citizen in question repeatedly took part in public actions in support of the Kyiv regime while in the United States."

She faces up to 20 years in Russian prison.

A chilling video posted by a Russian news agency shows Karelina handcuffed and with a cap drawn over her eyes on being taken into a courtroom. It is unclear when the video was recorded.



Yekaterinburg is also where Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich was arrested on spying charges almost a year ago.

After graduating from Russian ballet school SP Diaghilev, Karelina first moved to the US in 2013. She has worked as a manager at Ciel Spa Beverly Hills since 2019, according to her LinkedIn.

Since 2023, 63 people have been charged with treason in Russia with 37 having been found guilty. 
 ]]>
<![CDATA[JACK POSOBIEC: The media was quick to name Kyle Rittenhouse and Holden Armenta but now they’re protecting the KC Super Bowl parade shooters]]> On Monday's episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec analyzed the mainstream media's response to the Kansas City parade shooting. He pointed out that while they are not naming the shooters allegedly because they are "juveniles," they had no problem naming 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan Holden Armenta who Deadspin falsely claimed wore blackface to a game. 

Posobiec said that "even right-wing media is terrified of talking about Kansas City. The media won't name the shooters" and that Americans are "living through an era of information warfare." 

He played a clip in which the mayor of Kansas City criticized the governor of Missouri for calling the shooters "thugs" and seemingly revealed that they were black. 



"The media will cover up, with their power of omission and story selection bias, the truth of our very world even if it's a shooting at the Superbowl," Posobiec said. "Because they don't want to admit that black gang violence on the streets of Kansas City spilled over and shot up a Super Bowl parade." 

The host has heard excuses that the media is not naming the shooters because they are "juveniles" under the age of 18. He pointed out, however, that "the Kansas City media in particular has made an issue of someone who's underage recently," Holden Armenta. 

"The entire media went after him. The entire media named Holden Armenta, the entire media made a huge issue out of this," he stated. "They named him they went after him and performed actual deformation per se." 

Nick Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse are other examples of juveniles the media went after. 

"But you can shoot up the Superbowl parade in a city in our country's heartland and the media won't talk about it," Posobiec said. 

Watch the full episode below. 

]]>
<![CDATA[Eiffel Tower shuts down as workers strike, tourists turned away]]>
Sky News reports that workers are demanding an increase in salary after ticket sales have increased and overall maintenance of the monument has been better.

A sign at the front entrance written in English read: "Due to strike, the Eiffel Tower is closed. We apologise."

Potential tourists were also warned on its official website that a "disruption" may occur.

The CGT union which represents a large portion of the staff at the monument blamed poor financial management and a flawed business model for the discrepancy in pay. They allege that management at the Paris municipality does not have an accurate estimate of visitors, maintenance costs and staff compensation.

"They are giving priority to short-term benefits over long-term conservation of the monument and the well-being of the company we are working for," said union leader Stephane Dieu.

Marisa Solis, a tourist from New York City said: "We're a little disappointed but we understand that people deserve a fair wage and they deserve proper working conditions."

"Knowing that I can't come to the tower today is very, very disappointing," said another American tourist, Morgan McKenny, who was visiting to celebrate her birthday.
 ]]>
<![CDATA[JACQUELINE TOBOROFF: Democrats are trying to send Trump the way of Alexei Navalny]]>
On the same day as the Engoron ruling, Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader who ran for office against Russia’s President Putin, “died” in the Polar Wolf penal colony after taking a walk. Putin's fiercest domestic critic was already serving a 9-year sentence on fraud and embezzlement charges. In August 2023, Navalny was saddled with an additional nineteen years in prison after the court found he financed and incited "extremist activities" via his defunct Anti-Corruption Foundation. Judges also said Navalny was guilty of "rehabilitating Nazi ideology." 

Sound familiar? 

The most remarkable thing about the two separate events (Trump and Navalny) is the Western Left’s reaction. Presidents and government officials throughout America and Europe as well as the G7 flooded the airwaves expressing collective outrage at what happened to Navalny. They blame Putin, whom Biden called a “murderous dictator’ and “pure thug.” 

However, Biden’s reaction to the Engoron ruling as well as European rulers and the G7 has been a masterclass in irony. The very same freedom fighters are cheering on a legal apparatus that from stem to stern, ignores the rule of law and creates whatever it wants to ensnare the populist candidate and keep Biden—or whatever they replace him with—on the throne. There are major differences between Trump and Navalny but the overlap is they both took on the establishment, sweeping government corruption, and advocated for reforms. This is precisely why both are punished by rulers in regimes hostile to freedom.

Here’s what the highest-ranking elected officials have to say about Navalny. “[It’s] a further sign of Putin’s brutality. Whatever story they tell, let us be clear: Russia is responsible,” says Vice President Harris. "In today's Russia, free-spirited people are sent to the gulag and doomed to death. Anger and indignation. I honor the memory of Alexei Navalny, his dedication and courage”, says France’s President Macron.

“It is obvious that he was killed by Putin,” says Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

“He has probably now paid for this courage with his life”, says German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

And finally, lacking all self-awareness, Biden chimes in with, “We don’t know exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that the death of Navalny was a consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did.” 

We are witnessing in real time an attempt by America's ruling class to Navalny Trump. Navalny was poisoned with a military nerve agent in 2020 and survived. Nevertheless, Navalny returned to Russia in 2021, explaining that "I don't want to give up either my country or my beliefs" and committing to fight the authoritarian system, just as Trump is doing now.  For his trouble, Navalny was sentenced to a total of 30 ½ years in hell. Then, he went missing inside Russia's gulag in December. Navalny reemerged in a high-security penal colony in a remote town above the Arctic Circle. Russian authorities say he died of “sudden death syndrome.” He had bruises on his head and chest when his body arrived at the hospital last week. 

Granted, unlike Navalny, Trump has not—yet—been sent to the proverbial Gulag. But America's own commissars are certainly trying their best to make that happen. Remember, Trump has been impeached twice. He has been arrested four times. He has been charged 91 times across four criminal cases. These include 44 federal charges and 47 state charges. Trump faces 717.5 years in prison. The latest $355 million judgment is on top of others, including $88 million owed to E. Jean Carroll, who brought up the words “sexy” and “fantasy” when discussing what she said was rape and which no jury found Trump liable.

But here’s why Trump may succeed whereas Navalny succumbed: firstly, America is not yet Russia. We have lived under a Constitution for more than 240 years which was designed to prevent authoritarianism. Yes, the leftist elite is doing its best to maliciously "reimagine" that Constitution in order to target Trump and everyone who supports him, but appellate courts, up to and including SCOTUS, can still theoretically check them, whereas Russia has been governed by an autocracy for most of its history. The safeguards here are being deliberately weakened, yes, but in Russia, they never existed to begin with. That still matters, even if the Left is doing everything in its power to change it.

Secondly, Joe Biden is not Putin. Yes, his phantom administration aspires to the same level of power, but Putin is actually in control of his government, whereas Biden is a withered husk whose failings are obvious to everyone including his handpicked prosecutors. In Russia, if an official were to publicly say of Putin what Robert Hur said of Biden, that official might die of plutonium poisoning. Whereas Robert Hur is still alive and well, and so is Donald Trump. That does not necessarily mean that our tyrants do not have power, but it does mean that for now, they are less brazen about using it.

And finally, Trump is not Navalny, for a very simple reason: Trump actually was president. In fact, it's only because the memory of his four largely successful years in the White House compares so unfavorably to the chaos of the so-far three years of Biden that the Biden squad is chasing him with the determination of Captain Ahab. They know the January 6 committee wasn’t enough, but they hope trying to get Trump for a minimum of 717 years might be. If they were to catch and imprison him, as they hope, and the people were not convinced, then a Navalny-type solution might indeed be in the cards.

But first, they must catch him. And that they have not done. Donald Trump, even if he is hundreds of millions of dollars poorer, is still a free man. God willing, with his help, America will return to being a free country.
 ]]>
<![CDATA[Trans activist media freaks out over women-only lesbian bar opening in London]]> Trans activists are criticizing a move to open a women's only lesbian bar in London that does not allow trans-identified males from attaining membership. 

L Community, created by Jenny Watson, is set to open later in the year and will "legally restrict" access to cisgender women only, the Telegraph reports. She made the bar in response to a drop in female only lesbian bars. 

Pink News, a left-wing media outlet covering trans activism, attacked the bar in a report and said that the reason for the drop wasn't trans-identified males causing the decline of female-only spaces and placed the blame on rent prices and COVID-19. 

Watson has received backlash in the past for trying to host "female-only" speed-dating events which were commonly rejected by venue owners over fears of being labeled as transphobic. 

“If you are male, please refrain from coming to the events, you are not a lesbian," she posted on her website for one of the events. 

She recounted a time when a trans-identified male showed up at one of the events “sporting a purple latex outfit and an erection” and at one point “pushed their body at a woman” in the women's bathroom. 

She said she is "going to give it [her] all" to change the fact that there are no lesbian-exclusive bars in the UK

“No one will take bookings for my events anymore,” Watson said. "The trans activists are constantly targeting the events, so venues don’t want anything to do with them. But I thought 'I’m not going to put up with this. I’m going to fix it.' 

“We should have a right to our own space – hence the idea to set up the bar. It will be for biological females only and this is why we’re making it a members-only club so we can legally restrict it to women.” 

A spokesperson from feminist group Woman’s Place UK, said: “Lesbians and gays have fought for years for the right to be open about their sexuality and to date and marry people of the same sex." 

“Sadly, this right is now under attack from a homophobic movement that insists lesbians must not only welcome men into their spaces but treat them as potential sexual partners." 

“We deplore this attack on lesbians’ rights and hope we see many more lesbian social spaces that are open only to women.” 

]]>
<![CDATA[BARRINGTON MARTIN: Our children aren’t learning, so why will no one talk about it?]]>
Since 2000, the American high school graduation rate has been steadily on the rise reaching an all-time high of 93% in 2020; however, we need to begin acknowledging that the high graduation rates being touted as success is misleading and an outdated metric of educational achievement in America. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, we saw the drastic increase of the American high-school graduation rate over the last 20 years. This is solely due to the focus on test scores and standardized testing marks with a focus on test material more so than actual learning. A curriculum focused on test scores emphasizes on passing a standardized test rather than learning the necessary skills needed to be successful citizens.

Statistics clearly show that the United States education system is terribly broken. In 2019, only 37% of high school seniors were proficient at reading. In the same year, only 24% of high school seniors were proficient at math. These numbers further decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. How is it possible that there is a 93% graduation rate of high school students when only a very small fraction of these students are proficient at reading and math? Why are high schoolers graduating when they can barely read, write, or do math?

When education is discussed among politicians vying for candidacy, the real problems facing the public school system are never identified. In fact, much of the rhetoric pontificated by each party lacks the substantial data and facts needed to put forth practical solutions that actually make sense and provide relief from the problems within the education system today. With respect to education, most of the rhetoric from politicians is not aimed to fix a problem, but to rile up and generate outrage among their base. Not even Americans understand the problem that exists nor do they understand the magnitude of problem.

Furthermore, the men and women who are at heart of the education issues who witness the problems on a daily basis are excluded from the discourse. In a nation where the institution of family is failing and where the standards of parenting have been greatly diminished, it is preposterous that teachers are not involved within the conversations surrounding the problems of public school education. Teachers spend almost the same amount of time with children as their parents, are tasked with educating them, and equipping them with the skills needed to be productive citizens in this country, but not one politician on either end of the political spectrum has suggested to listen to their experiences in the classroom. What makes matters worse is that teachers are never consulted about the education policies in spite of these policies consistently producing failing results.

On the right end of the political spectrum, much of the talking points with respect to education hover around the culture wars and not education itself. For example, both President Donald Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis have waxed eloquent about gender, race, and sexuality being taught inappropriately in schools. There’s nothing wrong with this in principle, but it usually focuses exclusively on what schools shouldn’t teach, rather than on the fact that they currently can’t seem to teach, period.

The Democrat party is even more hopeless. Like Republicans, Democrat rhetoric with respect to education has been predominantly based on creating policies to rectify disparities that exist among race, identity, or class identities by using tax dollars in a charitable way to address those disparities. However, unlike the Republican party, none of these initiatives addresses the real problems occurring in education. Although the Biden Administration has sought to advance “educational equity” within the administration’s education policy, it has only addressed student loan forgiveness, redistributing tax dollars towards low-income and predominantly minority school systems, and ultimately prioritizing certain groups of students based identities rather than addressing the issue around learning.

In order to fix the quality of education, several things have to happen, and unfortunately, not all of them are entirely within educators’ power. For example, parents need to become a more integral part of their children’s education, and they must do it in ways that go well beyond what’s currently defined as being “active” within that child’s education. The culture of scholastic excellence starts at home; children should not be entering school as if their minds are a blank canvas. Parents must be the foundation that schools build on top of. This means extra schoolwork at home, and above all, children should know how to read before they enter grade school. This works for groups like the Jewish and Asian communities, who value formal education; why should it not be the norm in America?

However, when it comes to education policy, there is also the problem that the current metrics of success in American education are both archaic, and poor indicators of actual success. Tests can be gamed, and a student’s score may not correlate with any actual skills in reading, writing, and math. This is particularly true of the disastrous Common Core standards that were rammed through by President Obama, which do nothing but confuse children (and often, even teachers and parents) with their arbitrary impenetrable assignments and questions.

Further, to the extent that tests are used as metrics, they must have actual teeth: they should be taken at the end of elementary, middle, and high schools, and if students cannot pass these tests, they should not be eligible from promotion to the next level of school. Standards must be enforced; and not only enforced, but raised across the board; America’s standards are tragically low, compared to the rest of the first world. How are American children supposed to compete with students from other countries in the global job market when we have minimal scholastic expectations?

And lastly, the amount of education taxes that parents pay should be an itemized bill sent at the beginning of every school year. If tax payers understood the costs of educating children in comparison to the return on the investment of educating those children, American attitudes towards education would change overnight.

It is vital that education become topic of discussion as we inch closer to the election in November, and not just as a football in the culture wars. Yes, there are many things that should never have a place in American education. But the presence of objectional books in a school library is only a problem if the students in that library can read in the first place. If we want them to go on being able to od that, then need to revive the standards and methods which once made education in this great nation the envy of the world.]]>