Fake News – Are they Stupid or On the Take?

I watched the 60 minute interview of Trump and there too they said Russia invaded unprovoked. Here is Politico saying the same shit. Either these journalists are just on the take to put out constant fake news, or they are absolutely stupid and have no right working in media.

Even the Ukrainian press reported that Boris Johnson flew to Kiev to make sure he did not sign a peace deal. Boris got £1 million to introduce the British Military Industrial Complex to Zelensky.

They ignore the Minsk Agreement that the EU signed that was to allow the Donbas to vote on separation. Merkel told the press they never intended to honor that. They were buying toime for Ukraine to build an army to start this war.

Zelensky knew when Russia would invade and he made sure they would for the day before he proclaimed Ukraine would rearm with nuclear weapons. If I recall, we went after Russia and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 for the same reason.

Keep reading

Lawyer preps class action over Veterans Affairs MAID offers as more veterans come forward

Two days before Remembrance Day, Ezra Levant opened Monday’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show with Rudyard Kipling’s poem Tommy, about a country that cheers its soldiers in wartime and forgets them in peacetime.

“But simply ignoring or underfunding veterans is one thing,” Ezra said. “But how about actively proposing to veterans that they should kill themselves or be killed by doctors.”

His guest was Catherine Christensen of Valour Law, who is working toward a class action on behalf of Canadian veterans who say Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) steered them toward medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Christensen said the practice is “a lot more prominent than Veterans Affairs would be willing to admit.” Younger veterans are being offered MAID over the phone, she said, “in an unexpected way, so they’re not able to record it.” But in the last few months, she said, older veterans have started receiving letters from Veterans Affairs suggesting it.

She said more veterans have contacted her since the Daily Mail covered her clients’ stories, including a senior veteran who told someone at a service that he was appalled to have received a letter offering him MAID. She said a copy of one such letter is on its way to her.

One of her clients is Corben McGown, who says a VAC caseworker raised MAID as his first option for treatment when he was a 22-year-old veteran with PTSD. He is now 26 and suing the federal government in Federal Court.

Christensen said Veterans Affairs’ defence was that the call never happened, so her team set out to prove it did. She told Ezra that McGown is physically healthy. “This is a big problem with Veterans Affairs and it needs to stop,” she said.

The government disputes McGown’s account. A 2023 VAC investigation confirmed four cases in which one employee inappropriately raised MAID with veterans, and said it found no further validated incidents.

Asked whether the push is ideological or about money, Christensen said she believes it is about cost. “As gross as it sounds this close to Remembrance Day, the truth of it is that dead veterans are cheaper than live ones, especially young veterans,” she said. “It’s a budget thing, in my opinion.”

Christensen, a former registered nurse, also questioned how informed consent is possible when a veteran with a severe brain injury can be lined up for MAID within a couple of days.

The biggest challenges in the class action, she said, will be defining the classes and getting documents out of the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs. She pointed to the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, whose emails were hard to find because officials used a code name. “I’ve never seen defendants fight discovery harder than the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs,” she said.

She said veterans have been afraid to come forward because they fear losing their benefits, and that she is in talks with members of the opposition. Veterans can learn more at the Valour Legal Action Centre, a nonprofit.

“Veterans are very vulnerable and they deserve better treatment than this,” she said.

Keep reading

AIPAC Spent $84 Million Influencing American Midterm Elections

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated political organizations spent $84.1 million attempting to influence the 2026 midterm elections. According to an analysis by Responsible Statecraft, approximately $55.3 million, nearly two-thirds of that spending, went into races where AIPAC’s preferred candidates lost.

AIPAC does not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires certain organizations acting under foreign direction or control to disclose those relationships. AIPAC maintains that it is an American organization funded by Americans, and its activities are conducted under domestic lobbying and campaign-finance laws.

The 2026 midterms revealed just how much AIPAC was prepared to spend. Its super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP), poured approximately $31.5 million into efforts to prevent Abdul El-Sayed from winning Michigan’s Senate seat. The spending began during the Democratic primary and continued into the general election, when groups associated with AIPAC supported Republican Mike Rogers. El-Sayed defeated both opponents. In his victory speech, he directly addressed AIPAC, declaring, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice.”

The organization spent another $6.3 million attempting to defeat Daniel Biss in Illinois’s 9th Congressional District. Biss won his primary and ultimately secured approximately 75% of the general election vote. In California, pro-Israel political groups directed more than $6 million toward Melissa Hernandez, who lost to Aisha Wahab. In Maine, AIPAC-linked organizations spent more than $4.8 million supporting Susan Collins, who was defeated by Democrat Troy Jackson. These were not insignificant expenditures. Millions of dollars were concentrated in individual congressional races because the organization considered the candidates’ positions on Israel important enough to justify substantial financial intervention.

AIPAC also supported numerous winning candidates. The organization reported more than 234 successful candidates it supported during the election cycle. In 26 Senate races where affiliated groups spent more than $100,000, 21 of their preferred candidates won. Its influence therefore remains substantial, even after the expensive defeats. The more important development is that candidates increasingly appear willing to reject its support publicly. James Talarico, who won the Texas Senate election, openly refused AIPAC funding. He explained that his opposition was connected to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. His victory demonstrated that refusing the organization’s support need not prevent a candidate from winning a major statewide election.

The financial results also represent a substantial deterioration from AIPAC’s previous electoral performance. Responsible Statecraft calculated that approximately 34% of the organization’s 2026 spending went into races producing its preferred outcome. Comparable figures were 69% in 2022 and 87% in 2024. These percentages measure the allocation of spending across successful and unsuccessful races, not the percentage of candidates who won. Nevertheless, they indicate that the organization’s largest expenditures were increasingly concentrated in unsuccessful campaigns. AIPAC spent heavily attempting to defeat candidates critical of Israel, yet voters in several prominent races rejected those efforts.

AIPAC announced in October that it would discontinue direct candidate endorsements and contributions after the election cycle, while its affiliated political organizations would continue operating. The organization has long maintained that its members are American citizens exercising their constitutional rights to participate in politics. Its super PAC operates under federal campaign-finance rules permitting unlimited independent expenditures, provided those expenditures are not coordinated with candidates. Such arrangements are legal under the current system, but legality does not eliminate legitimate questions about transparency, accountability, and the concentration of political influence.

The political establishment still cannot grasp that the people are fed up with career politicians who answer to everyone except the voters who put them in office. They do not want another Washington insider, and they certainly do not want one whose campaign is being bankrolled by a powerful lobbying organization devoted to the interests of a foreign nation. AIPAC poured millions into these races, apparently believing that enough money could buy the outcome. What they failed to understand is that the money itself became part of the problem. Americans are watching their standard of living decline, their national debt spiral out of control, and their government borrow endlessly to finance wars overseas. Then along comes another establishment candidate with millions in outside funding, telling the public why the interests of another country must remain a priority. How much more obvious can it get? This is precisely the sort of resentment that helped defeat several AIPAC-backed candidates. The people are losing confidence in the political establishment, and throwing more money at candidates who represent that establishment is not going to restore it. Washington has become so accustomed to buying political influence that it has forgotten the voters still have the final say.

Keep reading

Flock Safety Is Financing the Politicians Who Oversee Its Surveillance Contracts

Why on earth does a company that supposedly sells license plate readers need to contribute to politicians’ campaigns? The Chicago Sun-Times has exposed how Flock Safety has been contributing to the campaigns of local officials whose jurisdictions purchase its technology. We are told these cameras are necessary to protect the public from crime. Yet the company collecting information on the movements of millions of Americans is now financially supporting politicians connected to its government customers. At what point do we begin questioning why a surveillance contractor needs political influence in the first place?

Illinois election records show that Flock contributed $6,000 between 2021 and 2025 to the political organization supporting Cicero Town President Larry Dominick. Cicero began working with Flock around 2020 and now operates 31 of its cameras. Flock also contributed $1,000 to Lake County Sheriff John Idleburg’s campaign in 2025 after the county approved the purchase of 15 cameras the previous year. Another $500 went to Dan Jungles, an unsuccessful candidate for Will County sheriff, whose department operates 25 Flock readers. These contributions are documented, although there is no evidence that contracts were awarded in exchange for campaign money. The officials involved insist the donations had no influence over their decisions. Fine. Then why is a surveillance company contributing to their political campaigns at all?

Flock also maintains a lobbying operation in Illinois, employing firms including Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies and National Strategies LLC. Cozen O’Connor reported approximately $485,000 in political contributions since early 2024, although that spending covers numerous clients and cannot be attributed entirely to Flock. The company’s CEO, Garrett Langley, has also made political contributions personally. Flock is not simply selling cameras and waiting for police departments to place orders. It is participating in the political system that determines how surveillance technology is purchased and regulated.

Keep reading

US Bases Damage by Iran: $19.94 Billion

World BEYOND War has just published a new report by Mohammed M.A. Abunahel and David Swanson called The Damage Done to U.S. Bases in the War on Iran: Documenting Attacks, Assessing Damage, and Estimating Financial Losses (full report here).

The estimated cost of replacing U.S. military property either completely destroyed or severely damaged by Iranian attacks, according to the calculations in the report, is $19.94 billion. When we read cost estimates for the U.S. role in the war of $43.6 billion, we can therefore correct that to an estimated $63.5 billion — not counting economic impacts or lost opportunity costs.

This report documents the damage done by Iranian attacks on both U.S. bases and on non-U.S. buildings and people in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Cyprus, and Israel.

According to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio the United States attacked Iran because Israel was planning to attack Iran, which was understood as likely to produce Iranian attacks on U.S. bases. Through the course of the war, the U.S. government has used the bases it has maintained thousands of miles away from the United States to describe its attacks on Iran as “defensive.” Prior to the build-up to war, over 50,000 U.S. troops occupied dozens of bases in some of the world’s most brutal dictatorships — dictatorships propped up in part by these bases.

When the U.S. Congress takes up legislation to authorize more military spending, the question must be carefully addressed: how much funding will go to rebuilding bases that make wars more likely and which have a high probability of being destroyed again, and is it fair to the host nations to impose bases that not only support unpopular rulers but also turn the surrounding areas into targets?

This report should have long since been produced by the U.S. government. Independent researchers should not have to make estimates based on news reports and what scraps of information the U.S. government sees fit to make public. Secrecy, like an archipelago of foreign bases, is one factor contributing to the initiation of wars. This report is offered in hopes of shining what light it can into the darkness of U.S. war policy.

Piecing together the costs to U.S. government property is not meant to distract from the massive human and property costs that this war has inflicted on the people of Iran. Rather, it is intended to help inform the U.S. public of one small part of what its government does with its money.

Keep reading

Report: Former NYPD Detective Busted in NYC Drug Ring

A former New York Police Department (NYPD) detective was among four people busted in a drug ring that involved funneling narcotics from Manhattan to Staten Island, authorities said.

Police found at least 13 unlicensed firearms inside 60-year-old retired NYPD detective Philip Pietrunti’s home after investigators intercepted his phone, according to a report by the New York Post.

In one conversation the alleged ringleader, 44-year-old Shanta Sawyer, was reportedly heard speaking to Pietrunti about selling cocaine to him for resale.

“You can’t wait until you get off from work?” Pietrunti allegedly asked, to which Sawyer replied, “No, because I’m selling to someone at work.”

Sawyer is charged with conspiring with Pietrunti — a former NYPD Emergency Service Unit member — along with his wife, 37-year-old Sophia Abinacer, and 35-year-old Michael Giordano, to supply illegal narcotics to customers in Staten Island.

While New York City’s Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office announced the arrests on Monday, the crew was busted last week after a six-month wiretap investigation that resulted in a raid of all of their homes.

Police reportedly found large quantities of fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin, along with a pill-pressing machine, while searching Sawyer and Abinacer’s Washington Heights residence — where two young children were present.

Meanwhile, inside Giordano’s home, authorities uncovered a small lockbox of crack cocaine, 40 envelopes containing heroin and cocaine, as well as two scales, and drug packaging materials.

In late August, Sawyer and Pietrunti were overheard discussing a plan to meet at a Wendy’s to sell cocaine and “Xannies,” also known as Xanax pills. Moreover, Sawyer reportedly informed the ex-detective that the pills were fake.

In early October, investigators intercepted a call, in which Sawyer planned to send Abinacer to meet a buyer for a narcotics deal involving “dog food,” “G’s,” “Hard,” “Candy,” and “Pebbles” — slang terms for heroin, crack cocaine, and fentanyl.

The next day, police spotted Sawyer’s wife showing up in Huguenot, Staten Island, to meet with the customer before driving back to her Manhattan residence, the New York Post reported.

Multiple phone calls also revealed that Sawyer and Giordano planned to sell cocaine and fentanyl to another customer from Giordano’s home. Police then saw a customer pull up to the residence, where Giordano came out and leaned into the vehicle. Sawyer left afterward.

“The defendants involved in this takedown are alleged to have participated in a multi-borough criminal conspiracy that sought to flood our borough with dangerous narcotics, including large quantities of fentanyl, heroin and oxycodone,” Richmond County District Attorney Michael McMahon said.

“One of the defendants, Philip Pietrunti, a Staten Islander and retired NYPD Emergency Service Unit member, is accused of amassing a small army’s worth of illegal firearms, jeopardizing our borough’s public safety and betraying his oath to protect the community he once served,” McMahon added.

Notably, this is not the ex-detective’s first run-in with the law.

Keep reading

US Army Soldier Arrested In England Over Russian Spying – And Where He Worked Is The Alarming Part

A 41-year-old US Army soldier was arrested near Gloucester, England, on Tuesday on suspicion of spying for Russia while assigned to NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, the alliance’s British-led rapid-deployment headquarters.

London’s Metropolitan Police said the arrest was made as part of a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation, on suspicion of offenses under sections 1 and 3 of the National Security Act 2023: obtaining, copying, retaining or disclosing “protected information,” and assisting a foreign intelligence service. “The country to which the allegations relate is Russia,” the force said. The soldier, who has not been named, is in custody at a London police station, and officers are searching two addresses in Gloucestershire.

A senior NATO military official confirmed to NBC News that the American service member “was assigned to NATO’s” ARRC, whose headquarters sits at Imjin Barracks on the outskirts of Gloucester. Three people familiar with the matter told the network the same.

Keep reading

Germany Threatens to Hold the Entire EU Budget Hostage for Ukraine

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is now threatening to block the European Union’s entire seven-year budget unless every member state agrees to finance Ukraine. This is the state of European politics today. The governments of 27 nations are supposed to negotiate a budget that addresses their own economic needs, infrastructure, agriculture, regional development, and public services. Instead, Merz has decided the future of the entire European Union must be conditional on another financial commitment to a nation that is not even an EU member. The war has been dragging on since February 2022, European economies are deteriorating, and the political establishment continues to behave as though there is an unlimited supply of money that can be extracted from the taxpayers.

Ukraine is facing a €70 billion financing shortfall in 2027. Brussels has already promised to cover approximately two-thirds of that amount, or €45 billion, despite having no agreed mechanism to finance the commitment. The European Commission is considering another round of joint borrowing, which would place additional obligations upon European taxpayers. This comes on top of the €90 billion loan approved last December. The existing loan was supposed to provide Ukraine with financing over two years, yet Kyiv is already demanding another enormous injection of capital. At what point does anyone in Brussels acknowledge that this is becoming a permanent financial obligation rather than temporary emergency assistance?

Merz has written to European Council President António Costa demanding that all member states contribute to Ukraine’s financing. He declared, “A collective commitment that all of us, without exception, will contribute fairly to closing this gap is an essential prerequisite for resolving this issue and for discussing any further matters, particularly those with financial implications.” Germany is threatening to withhold approval of the EU’s 2028–2034 budget unless countries that have already expressed opposition to additional Ukraine financing agree to participate.

Keep reading

EU Approves First Military Mission Presence On Ukrainian Soil: ‘Make No Secret Of It’

The European Council has announced that it is sending EU military personnel directly to Ukraine as part of its ongoing train and advise mission.

However, whereas this program – called the EU Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM) – previously only took place outside of Ukraine, it will now be extended to Ukrainian territory.

In a Monday press release, the Council confirmed that it is extending the mandate of the EUMAM until November 15, 2028, with a budget of nearly 300 million (or $334 million) – but added this huge new development:

“The Council also decided to establish a presence in Ukraine to ensure direct and effective coordination with the Ukrainian military authorities,“ the press release from Brussels said.

This is a huge provocation aimed at Russia, given that Moscow’s position has long been that European soldiers would be fair game for Russian strikes.

While it’s believed that Western forces and certainly intelligence officers been on the ground throughout the conflict, especially French forces, this has never been done in an official and public capacity.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this change at a press conference Tuesday while speaking from Abu Dhabi at the trilateral Russia-Ukraine-US talks:

“Europe’s plan is quite simple, and they make no secret of it: as soon as a ceasefire is reached, they intend to move ‘stabilization forces’ into the territory controlled by the Kiev regime.”

Indeed it seems Brussels is trying to create leverage for inself by being more directly ‘involved’ on the ground in Ukraine.

Keep reading

Parents win settlement after being punished for protesting ‘transgender’ male

A New Hampshire school district will shell out $275,000 to settle a lawsuit after it punished family members of a soccer player for wearing “XX” wristbands during a game.

The settlement also affirms the rights of spectators to quietly protest during games.

“Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to silently wear pink wristbands bearing the XX symbol on the sidelines, in the spectator’s area, or in the parking lot of any Bow District sporting event,” the declaratory judgement states.

The school district also acknowledged that it “violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights when it barred Plaintiffs from wearing the wristbands at the girls’ varsity soccer game on September 17, 2024.”

Controversy erupted after the plaintiffs, who included the parents and a grandparent, chose to wear the wristbands at a game two years ago. The family members did not interrupt the game, harass the gender-confused player, or otherwise cause a disturbance.

Still, school officials stepped in to violate the family members’ First Amendment rights.

As the Institute for Free Speech explained:

School officials, accompanied by a police officer, confronted them. The referee halted play until one spectator removed his wristband, and school officials later issued trespass orders barring [the plaintiffs] from school grounds, preventing them from attending their children’s games and other school activities for a time.

While First Amendment jurisprudence does allow for school district officials to regulate speech when it could cause a “material disruption,” attorneys failed to argue that the spectators were causing trouble.

Keep reading