Ukrainian forces have struck an oil facility in St. Petersburg, only hours before the start of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an event highlighted by Russian leadership as a flagship conference on Russian world leadership.
The Kremlin declared, “The “Special Military Operation” is continuing precisely to prevent attacks like the attack on Saint Petersburg from occurring. Putin will speak at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.”
With roughly 50 percent of the expected vote counted early Wednesday morning, Bass led with approximately 36-37 percent while Pratt pulled in a strong 29.2 percent.
Progressive City Councilmember Nithya Raman trailed far behind in third at 21.4 percent.
Under California’s top-two primary system, Bass and Pratt will face off in November, giving Pratt five more months to campaign.
Pratt decided to run on cleaning up the city after becoming fed up with rampant crime, homelessness, and losing his home in the devastating 2025 wildfires, which he, and many others, largely blame on incumbent Mayor Karen Bass’ extreme failures.
Though the election is non-partisan, with no listed parties, Pratt is personally a registered Republican.
The Hills star’s Pacific Palisades home was destroyed in last year’s wildfires. He announced his bid on the one-year anniversary of the destruction, positioning himself as the candidate who lost everything to government incompetence and is now fighting to fix it.
Pratt campaigned on aggressive homeless sweeps, tougher policing, business revival, and accountability for the Bass administration’s handling of disasters and street disorder.
Around 10:20 p.m. Tuesday night at his watch party at Don Antonio’s Mexican restaurant, Pratt stepped outside to address reporters after early results showed him advancing.
In a fiery statement to the gathered press, Pratt declared, “I didn’t know I’d be here tonight, but this is obviously God’s plan, and I’m going to go all the way, and I’m going to show everybody that I’m their mayor.”
Medical case manager Miriam Volpin was at work in Nevada when she received a disturbing message from a student journalist at the University of Southern California (USC).
That student, Jennifer Nehrer, was part of a team investigating allegations that bodies donated to the school for education and scientific research were being sold to the United States Armed Forces. Some may even have ended up in the hands of Israeli military surgeons.
“I just got sick to my stomach,” Volpin told Al Jazeera.
Her 101-year-old mother, Jeanette, had died in 2021. A former flight nurse who served in World War II, Jeanette had arranged to donate her body to USC.
Volpin now fears her mother’s body was among those used to train surgical teams for conflicts like Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
The AJ+ documentary series Direct From caught up with Volpin and other family members who wonder whether the remains of their loved ones were used to provide training for military personnel.
Direct From also met with the student journalists who broke the story in 2025, to take their investigation further.
Their reporting revealed that USC was one of two schools in southern California that provided cadavers to the US Navy for Israeli surgical teams.
Records show that, since 2018, USC has supplied at least 89 fresh cadavers as part of agreements involving training for both the US Navy and Israeli military personnel.
Public information about the Israeli training is limited. But a 2020 medical paper written by USC and US Navy instructors offers a rare glimpse inside the process.
Once top-secret CIA files have detailed America’s plans to control the world by manipulating the weather.
The documents, declassified in 2003, discussed the controversial topic of weather modification, the tactic of launching rockets or using planes to dump chemicals into the atmosphere that alter the climate and local storm systems.
Although the resurfaced documents from 1965 did not mention the specific chemicals used in the experiments, they did discuss the need for more funding of the weather modification projects that would soon be used as a weapon of war.
In fact, the memos noted that federal funding for the secret program was set to be four times higher in 1967 – the same year the US began spraying toxins over Vietnam to cause floods and landslides.
One post on X claimed: ‘The CIA has been poisoning the sky and controlling the weather since 1965!’
The 18-page report was recently shared by conspiracy theorists, years after it was quietly placed into the CIA’s public archives, including a letter praising the classified operation from US President Lyndon B Johnson.
Johnson’s endorsement of the CIA’s weather modification project came just three years after he gave an ominous speech on the future of America and the work to create ‘weather satellites’ with the power to strengthen storms.
While giving the commencement address at Southwest Texas State University in May 1962, then-Vice President Johnson said: ‘He who controls the weather will control the world.’
Just 18 months after giving this speech advocating for the US to control the weather, LBJ became the 36th president and would oversee two infamous projects designed to manipulate the weather – Project Stormfury and Project Popeye.
Following the speech, the records showed real government programs were already underway by 1965, such as Project Stormfury, which flew into hurricanes and seeded them with a freezing agent called silver iodide to try to weaken the storms by disrupting their inner structures.
Johnson’s letter, which is among the 18-page CIA report, from September of that year specifically mentioned the project’s work in manipulating a recent hurricane near Florida, believed to be Hurricane Betsy, which made landfall in Louisiana as a major Category 4 storm.
By 1967, however, this work expanded to Project Popeye, which was used against enemy supply lines during the Vietnam War to artificially extend the country’s monsoon season.
Intelligence officials also noted they had the full support of Johnson, who was determined to beat the Soviet Union’s efforts to control the weather as global tensions escalated.
The US government has maintained that weather modification has been used only to help weaken dangerous storms and induce rain in drought-stricken areas.
However, conspiracy theorists sharing the files have accused the CIA of using these projects to keep the world dependent on government by weaponizing storms, blocking sunlight and poisoning food supplies to intentionally make people sick.
Those allegations focus on so-called ‘chemtrails,’ the white streaks seen coming from high-flying jets on clear days, which appear to spread out and dissipate very slowly.
A socialist who sells herself as a champion of struggling renters in Los Angeles is secretly living a life of luxury, the California Post can reveal.
Faizah Malik, 41, the Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidate challenging moderate Councilmember Traci Park, 50, on Los Angeles’ Westside with a campaign centered on rent reform and housing affordability, lives in a sprawling, $2.5 million mansion in Venice Beach.
The sprawling home sits on a 5,780-square-foot lot with a private enclosed yard, with sun-drenched interiors and high-end finishes throughout.
It has an all-white kitchen with stainless steel appliances, multiple bedrooms opening onto private balconies and a deck designed for outdoor dining, a rare luxury in the expensive enclave.
The property is tucked inside Penmar, near the Penmar Golf Course, a neighborhood of single-family homes where prices typically start at $1.7 million and climb to $4 million.
A Zillow listing has the property’s rental estimate at $8,000 a month, a far cry from the struggling renters she claims she will represent.
The average Angeleno pays up to $3,000 a month for a place to live, according to a March rental market trends report by Zumper.
Only 9 percent pay more than $6,000 a month for rent.
But when The Post contacted Malik, her spokeswoman suggested she too was feeling the squeeze: “On the Westside, there are renters that are in every possible financial situation, and there are homeowners who are feeling enormous financial pressure as well.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new content ratings for TV shows that depict or discuss gender identity. Doing so would be well outside the FCC’s legal authority, and some free speech organizations warn that such a request could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.
At the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters developed content ratings for TV shows, patterned after the ones for movies. The TV ratings span TV-Y (appropriate for all children) to TV-MA (mature audiences only), plus more specific content labels for suggestive dialogue, bad language, sexual content, and violence. They also established the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB) to administer the new ratings.
The government now suggests those warnings are no longer sufficient.
“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” per a public notice the FCC filed in April. “Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
As a result, it continued, “We seek comment here on any changes that can or should be made to the current ratings system to ensure that it is responsive to the issues that parents confront today.”
There are several problems with the memo—starting with the fact that the FCC lacks the authority to create or require new content labels.
The 1996 law did call for the government to create a “television rating code” and an “advisory committee,” unless the private sector “established voluntary rules” to do so within a year of the law’s passage. As the FCC acknowledged in its April memo, “Industry representatives chose to set up their own voluntary system, and the Commission in 1998 found that industry’s approach met the relevant statutory criteria.”
Even setting that aside for the moment, the memo’s phrasing also suggests any “transgender [or] gender non-binary” content is potentially inappropriate for children—after all, why else would it matter if parents were sufficiently warned about it?
This broad scope has First Amendment implications. “If what the Commission is in substance proposing is that any program featuring or discussing transgender and gender non-binary persons be flagged with a content warning, that is the stigmatization and marginalization of an entire segment of the population through the machinery of the ratings system, and it is the kind of viewpoint targeting forbidden by the First Amendment,” according to comments filed to the FCC by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think at Vanderbilt University.
Louisiana’s governor says he signed a bill that threatens to send people to jail for up to one year if they smoke marijuana within 2,000 feet of a school property—including a college campus— because he is “tired” of smelling cannabis at football games.
“Like most of you, I’m tired of going to our college and high school campuses and being inundated with the smell of marijuana,” he said in a video posted to social media. “And I’m tired of seeing drugs littering our high school and college campuses, hurting our students.”
“These drugs take away from the family-friendly environments that our colleges are supposed to be, especially on game days,” the governor said.
The legislation from Rep. Gabe Firment (R) that Landry signed last month applies to people who violate drug laws “while smoking, vaping, or otherwise abusing such controlled dangerous substance while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within two thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus.”
The bill “takes a massive step toward protecting our families and children in Louisiana on those campuses,” the governor argued in his new video that was posted on Friday.
The largest real-world human study to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients is now peer-reviewed and published in Anticancer Research—a major international oncology journal of the International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR), established in 1995.
Our study, “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” represents one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.
In this prospective real-world clinical program evaluation, a diverse population of cancer patients (n=197) was prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole. Participants were followed for approximately six months using standardized digital surveys assessing cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and tolerability.
At approximately six months post-treatment initiation, we observed an 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR)—meaning more than four out of five patients reported either no evidence of disease (remission), tumor regression, or cancer stabilization.
Nearly half of all patients (48.4%) reported the strongest positive outcomes, including no evidence of disease (32.8%) or tumor regression (15.6%). An additional 36.1% reported disease stabilization, while only 15.6% reported progression.
Importantly, adherence was remarkably high, with 86.9% completing the initial prescription and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.
Side effects were predominantly mild and manageable, reported in 25.4% of patients (primarily gastrointestinal), with 93.6% of those experiencing side effects continuing treatment after minor dosing adjustments.
What makes these findings especially notable is that this was a heterogeneous, real-world cancer population—including patients with prostate, breast, lung, colon, liver, and many other malignancies, many of whom were also undergoing conventional therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
This groundbreaking peer-reviewed publication was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and epidemiologic expertise to evaluate inexpensive, repurposed therapies with major translational potential.
EU’s ‘green’ agenda is a recipe for disaster.
You know the suicidal environmental policies emanating from Brussels are about to be ditched when even members of the Polish liberal government led by PM Donald Tusk are openly criticizing it.
Tusk was elected with a clear mandate to bring Poland closer to the EU after the conservatives from PiS had bucked the Globalist agenda on so many fronts.
But it turns out that the European Union has become so radicalized that even Tusk’s liberals can’t stomach it anymore.
EU cheerleaders from POLITICO hosted an Energy & Climate Forum in Brussels today, where Secretary of State Krzysztof Bolesta said the EU was ‘moving too fast’ in its emissions cut plans targeting heavy industry.
Politico reported:
“The speed at which the EU is pushing its industry to cut carbon emissions under the Emissions Trading System is ‘insane’, according to Poland’s deputy climate and environment minister [Krzysztof Bolesta].
[…] ‘This is insane. And it’s not one industry branch, it’s quite a few. So, for me, this topic is actually something that we need to change’, he said, adding the current trajectory would hand the EU ‘the moral high ground, but we’ll have no industry’.”
The federal government says it cannot provide basic information about who is participating in its firearm confiscation compensation scheme, including whether any participants have criminal records or how many are members of the military, RCMP, federal public service or Indigenous communities.
The admission came in response to an Order Paper Question submitted by Conservative MP Alex Ruff, who asked for a breakdown of participants in the federal government’s so-called Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program.
Ruff sought information on how many registered participants had criminal records, how many held restricted firearms licences, how many were first-time versus renewed licence holders, and how many participants were members of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP, veterans or federal public servants. He also asked how many participants were Indigenous and licensed under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations.
In its response, Public Safety Canada said the information is “not systematically tracked in a centralized database” and that producing a comprehensive answer would require a manual review that could not be completed within the time allotted for responding to parliamentary questions. Officials warned that attempting to do so could result in “incomplete and misleading information.”
The department used the same explanation when asked whether any participants in the compensation program had criminal records and when asked how many participants were members of the military, RCMP, veterans or federal public service.
The RCMP provided a similar response, stating that the information requested is split between Public Safety Canada’s compensation program and the Canadian Firearms Program’s licensing records. The force said producing a complete answer would require collecting data from Public Safety Canada and cross-referencing it with the Canadian Firearms Information System, a process it said could not be completed within the allotted time.
The RCMP also said it could not provide figures on how many participants were Indigenous firearm owners because the required information is not maintained in a single centralized database and would require extensive cross-referencing of records.
The response raises questions about the government’s ability to track who is participating in a program that is expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite requiring participants to register firearms for compensation, federal officials say they are unable to readily determine whether participants have criminal records, belong to law enforcement agencies, serve in the military, are veterans, or qualify under Indigenous firearms licensing provisions.
The government’s response was tabled on May 29 by the Public Safety Minister’s office through Parliamentary Secretary Jacques Ramsay.
You must be logged in to post a comment.