Blog

It’s now a crime in Switzerland to say skeletons can’t be trans

In December, Emanuel Brünisholz will begin a 10-day stint in a Swiss prison. His crime? Stating the scientific truth that skeletons cannot be transgender.

Brünisholz’s dystopian tale begins in December 2022. In response to a Facebook post by Swiss National Council member Andreas Glarner, Brünisholz, a wind-instrument repairman from Burgdorf, wrote: ‘If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.’

In August 2023, Brünisholz was interviewed by Burgdorf police, who interrogated him over the ‘intent’ of his comment. Then came a prosecutor’s letter, informing him that he had been charged with ‘hate speech’ against the relatively new category of sexual orientation in the Swiss Criminal Code. He was convicted and fined 500 Swiss Francs.

He appealed this conviction, but was unsuccessful. In December, a court reaffirmed the guilty verdict, and Brünisholz was ordered to pay an extra 600 Swiss Francs in court costs. Brünisholz, unwilling to throw more time and money at this ridiculous assault on his free speech, did not appeal further. He has since refused to pay his fines and court fees and, as a result, will go to prison.

The censorship of gender-critical speech and the accompanying assault on truth is bad enough. But the logical and linguistic contortions in the original judgement make matters even worse. In one passage, the judge wrote:

‘LGBTQI means lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, queer and intersex, and denotes therefore different sexual orientations. It’s a loose group of people who consider themselves a part of the aforementioned sexual orientations. Therefore, LGBTQI is a group of people with specific sexual orientations.’

Keep reading

Radical Pennsylvania Bills Could Allow Public Funding Of Abortion Up To Birth

he Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee votes on a package of six bills Wednesday that will make it possible for pregnant Pennsylvania women to kill their unborn babies up to birth. It will also turn Pennsylvania into an abortion tourism destination, allowing women from states with stronger pro-life rules to kill their babies in Pennsylvania with no legal entanglements.   

Currently Pennsylvania bans abortion after 24 weeks (six months), though even then state law makes an exception “when the pregnancy poses a serious health risk or threatens the life” of the mother.

The main legislation is HB 1957, which aims to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution, making abortion a state constitutional right. HB 1957 would have to be approved by voters on a statewide ballot, and the committee hearing is the first step in that long process to amend the state constitution. First it must be approved in committee, then it moves to the House. The Pennsylvania House has a slight Democrat majority over Republicans, 102-101, so there is a good chance the constitutional amendment (and the entire six-bill package) will be approved by the committee and could pass the House.

The Republican-led Senate is less likely to approve the amendment, but if it did, the General Assembly would need to pass the proposed amendment again in the next legislative session, and it would then be placed on the ballot for statewide voter approval. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a strong and tacky proponent of abortion (often making cutesy posts about “protecting access”), would not be involved in the amendment process.

“They have no restriction on abortion in the language,” Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation Legislative Director Maria Gallagher told The Federalist, speaking of measures. “These bills are incredibly bad for women and babies in Pennsylvania; they would do everything from establish taxpayer funding of abortion to establishing late term abortions, to taking away the 24-hour waiting period for abortion, to taking away the counseling requirements for abortion. And what that would mean, is that women would not be told the risks of abortion or alternatives to abortion before an abortion takes place. This is really turning back the clock on protections for pregnant women and their babies.”

The bills would return Pennsylvania to the Kermit Gosnell era, providing legal protections for abortionists and late-term abortions without restrictions. Gosnell was an abortionist who killed babies after they were born in his filthy Philadelphia abortion mill.

The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on HB 1957, the constitutional change, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, then vote on the full package of bills at 11 a.m.

Keep reading

UN records 71 settler attacks in one week across occupied West Bank

Israeli settlers carried out 71 attacks against Palestinians across the occupied West Bank between 7 and 13 October, according to a UN report published on 16 October.

The attacks, many of them armed, resulted in the death of one man and the injury of 99 others, as documented by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Most of the settler assaults hit farming areas just as the olive harvest began, affecting 27 Palestinian villages, with nearly half of all reported attacks tied to the harvest that started on 9 October.

In the town of Deir Jarir in east Ramallah, Israeli settlers and military forces jointly opened fire on residents after settlers attacked Palestinian vehicles with stones, resulting in a 26-year-old man being shot dead, and two others being injured. 

The assault followed months of settler expansion in the area, including a new outpost and road connecting an Israeli military base to the village’s western entrance.

Two days later, settlers armed with rifles and sticks raided the village of Atara, also in the Ramallah governorate, attacking residents and opening fire on Palestinian vehicles. 

Keep reading

CIVIL WAR? Trump Administration to Establish “National Guard Response Force” to be Mobilized for Mass Civil Unrest by April 2026

A new memo has been unearthed, showing that the Trump Administration is preparing to mobilize National Guard troops across the nation by April 2026 to stop potential uprisings amid the nationwide No Kings protests and violent anti-ICE protests in cities like Chicago, Illinois, and Portland, Oregon. 

This comes after the Trump administration won a lawsuit over the President’s deployment of National Guard troops in Portland to quell riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Trump has activated hundreds of California and Texas National Guard troops in Portland and Chicago, but was recently blocked by a Trump-appointed District Court Judge.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, on Monday, the Ninth Circuit allowed President Trump to deploy Oregon National Guard troops to Portland and said he “lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.””

In a separate case, Trump has asked the US Supreme Court to intervene and allow National Guard troops to be deployed in Chicago.

The new memo, obtained exclusively by investigative reporter Anthony Cabassa, outlines the planned implementation of a “National Guard Response Force” (NGRF), which will be used for crowd control and civil disturbance operations in all states, territories, and the District of Columbia.

Units of up to 500 troops will be trained to fully deploy within 24 hours in the case of a violent uprising or riot.

Troops will also be trained and equipped to use non-lethal weapons, including TASER/Oleoresin and Capsicum Spray, according to the memo.

The memo reads in part, “states will train, equip and make NGRFs operational NLT 1 April 2026. NGRFs are required in all 53 States and Territories. The District of Columbia has a unique solution set directed by the Secretary of War. NGRFs will train in civil disturbance operations and prepared to deploy approximately 25% of the force in 8 hours, 50% of the force in 12 hours, and the full response requirement in 24 hours.”

This provides insight into what the Trump Administration expects by spring, given the ongoing uprisings and left-wing insurrection in states across the nation.

Cabassa reports on Substack that a source told him the move is “not normal,” and they “have never seen an order like this before.”

“Hoping this is only to be safe and a precaution, and none of this will be used in a real scenario,” the source said, according to Cabassa.

“It also feels like leadership has intelligence or indications that something more significant could happen between January and May [of 2026]. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pulling specialized … forces into a role [they] were never meant to fill.”

Keep reading

‘Massive legal siege’ against social media companies looms

Thousands of plaintiffs’ complaints, millions of pages of internal documents and transcripts of countless hours of depositions are about to land in U.S. courtrooms, threatening the future of the biggest social media companies.

The blizzard of paperwork is a byproduct of two consolidated lawsuits accusing Snap Inc.’s Snapchat; Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook and Instagram; ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok; and Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube of knowingly designing their platforms to addict users — allegedly resulting in youth depression, anxiety, insomnia, eating disorders, self-harm and even suicide.

The litigation, brewing for more than three years, has had to overcome numerous hurdles, including the liability shield that has protected social media platforms from facing user-harm lawsuits. The social media companies have filed multiple motions to dismiss the cases on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents them from being held accountable for content posted on their sites.

Those motions have been largely unsuccessful, and courtrooms across the country are poised to open their doors for the first time to the alleged victims of social media. The vast majority of cases have been folded into two multijurisdictional proceedings, one in state and the other in federal court, to streamline the pretrial discovery process.

The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in Los Angeles Superior Court in late January. It involves a 19-year-old woman from Chico, California, who says she’s been addicted to social media for more than a decade and that her nonstop use of the platforms has caused anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Two other trials will follow soon after, with thousands more waiting in the wings. If successful, these cases could result in multibillion-dollar settlements — akin to tobacco and opioid litigation — and change the way minors interact with social media.

“This is going to be one of the most impactful litigations of our lifetime,” said Joseph VanZandt, an attorney at Beasley Allen Law Firm in Montgomery, Alabama, and co-lead plaintiffs’ attorney for the coordinated state cases. “This is about large corporations targeting vulnerable populations — children — for profit. That’s what we saw with the tobacco companies; they were also targeting adolescents and trying to get them addicted while they were young.”

Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle, makes a similar comparison to tobacco litigation in the Bloomberg documentary Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media. “In the case of Facebook, you have internal documents saying ‘tweens are herd animals,’ ‘kids have an addict’s narrative’ and ‘our products make girls feel worse about themselves.’ You have the same kind of corporate misconduct,” Bergman says in the film, which will be available to view on Bloomberg’s platforms on October 30.

Bergman’s firm was the first to file user-harm cases against social media companies, in 2022, after Frances Haugen, a former Meta product manager-turned-whistleblower, released a trove of internal documents showing the company knew social media was negatively impacting youth mental health. The first case, which is part of the consolidated federal litigation, alleged that an 11-year-old Connecticut girl killed herself after suffering from extreme social media addiction and sexual exploitation by online predators.

What set that case apart was how it got around Section 230’s immunity blanket. Bergman argued that his case wasn’t about third-party content, which the federal law protects. Instead, he said it hinged on the way social media companies were intentionally designing their products to prioritize engagement and profit over safety.

Keep reading

FEMA politically discriminated against Americans under Biden: Report

Reports of FEMA disaster assistance teams in 2024 bypassing homes displaying signs supporting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump were true and were indicative of a pattern tracing back to Hurricane Ida in 2021, says an internal probe by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, the 22-page analysis made available Tuesday says the Federal Emergency Management Agency violated the Privacy Act of 1974, treated individuals unfairly based on political beliefs, and these actions stemmed from systemic issues in FEMA policies, processes and practices.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said evidence is clear of “textbook political discrimination against Americans in crisis.”

“The federal government,” Noem said, “was withholding aid against Americans in crisis based on their political beliefs – this should horrify every American, regardless of political persuasion. For years, FEMA employees under the Biden administration intentionally delayed much-needed aid to Americans suffering from natural disasters on purely political grounds.

“They deliberately avoided houses displaying support for President Trump and the Second Amendment, illegally collected and stored information about survivors’ political beliefs, and failed to report their malicious behavior. We will not let this stand.”

Matt Taibbi was first to report the investigation’s conclusion on Monday. The Center Square on Monday was unsuccessful in obtaining a copy of the report before the Tuesday morning national release.

Evidence examined by the Privacy Office of Homeland Security included screenshots of FEMA’s tool to collect and maintain information for the purpose of disaster survivor assistance. The report says, “The entries within the tool clearly showed that canvassers included information related to political party affiliation, campaign signs, and other information that may be considered First Amendment-protected freedom of expression within the free-text notes section.”

And, it said, “In several instances, canvassers’ records indicate that canvassers skipped homes and left no disaster assistance flyers, citing the First Amendment-protected activity.”

A map of the United States includes instances in eight states between 2021 and 2024, with the testimony to Congress quote of former FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell above it. She said, “I do not believe that this employee’s actions are indicative of any widespread cultural problems at FEMA.”

Marn’i Washington, fired from her position as a disaster survivor assistance crew leader for FEMA, on the Nov. 11 edition of the Roland Martin Unfiltered Daily Digital Show had confirmed homes skipped. She said it happened at homes not only with signs for Trump but also for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.

She said it happened in Florida and the Carolinas. Hurricane Milton was one of three hurricanes to hit Florida in 66 days, and another was Helene that ravaged Georgia, the Carolinas and Tennessee – the most deaths and mostly costly damage coming in North Carolina.

On the Homeland Security report’s map, two notations for North Carolina include instances in October and November last year. The first says, “The survivor had a sign that read NRA, we do our part,” and the second said, “Survivor stated that homes have been damaged, but there are Republicans on the grounds with guns, so please be careful.”

A dot for Florida from October says, “Trump sign, no contact per leadership.” Another dot for November said, “There was a political flyer so I didn’t leave a FEMA brochure.”

Keep reading

FDA Stayed Silent As Internal Reports About Potential Tylenol Risks Piled Up

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defied the advice of its own drug safety experts to warn pregnant women about Tylenol for nearly a decade, internal reports and presentations obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

FDA rank-and-file scientists repeatedly recommended the agency release information about Tylenol in pregnancy across three scientific reviews conducted in 2016, 2019, 2022 and two memos, one from the FDA’s maternal health division in 2016 and one from the FDA’s urological health division in 2017.

The scientific literature posits many plausible drivers of autism, the most well-established of which are genetic, and the FDA drug safety experts acknowledged that the research linking the condition to Tylenol is far from ironclad.

Still, as alarm bells rang within FDA headquarters and the boardrooms of Tylenol’s manufacturers, pregnant women heard nothing from either the government or the manufacturers about the potential risks until the September announcement by President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

FDA leadership declined to update its webpage about over-the-counter painkillers in pregnancy, repeatedly falling back on language first issued in January 2015. But that statement simply acknowledged that “FDA is aware of concerns” about Tylenol and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), citing just one scientific paper.

At the urging of Trump and Kennedy, FDA finally released a nuanced statement in September cautioning pregnant women about Tylenol while acknowledging that aspirin, ibuprofen and high fevers all pose their own risks. That move was first recommended by an FDA drug safety expert nine years earlier.

The DCNF obtained the FDA documents from the law firm Keller Postman LLC, which brought a class action lawsuit against Tylenol maker Kenvue, a legally independent spinoff of Johnson & Johnson. The personal injury law firm, which often brings class action lawsuits, obtained the documents from FDA via the Freedom of Information Act.

Tylenol, a brand name for acetaminophen, first received FDA approval in 1955 before modern drug laws tightened clinical trial requirements in 1962.

Some experts argue that neurological damage occurs due to a toxic byproduct of acetaminophen called NAPQI. Babies and children with autism may struggle to metabolize the drug, resulting in higher levels of NAPQI, which kills cells.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Democrats Busted for Sharing ‘No Kings’ Protest Pic Wishing Death on President Trump

Over the weekend, Leftists held their “No Kings” protests across the country. The turnout must not have been great, because several people, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, shared a 2017 video of a massive crowd and pretended turn out was high.

In reality, the protests were small and populated by White Leftist boomers. But there were some ugly signs and speakers, including the woman who mocked Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Leftist in Chicago who called on the crowd to shoot and “take out” ICE agents, and cringe-worthy chants from George Conway.

The Wisconsin Democrats were also busted for sharing a post that included a pic of a protester wishing death on President Trump, a la the French Revolution.

Tell us you know nothing about the French Revolution without telling us you know nothing about the French Revolution.

The WisDems knew it was bad, however, because they deleted the post.

Josh Schoemann, the Republican Washington County Executive who is running for governor, asked the Democrats about it.

Keep reading

UN experts say US strikes against Venezuela in international waters amount to ‘extrajudicial executions’

U.S. strikes against Venezuela in international waters are a dangerous escalation and amount to “extrajudicial executions,” a group of independent United Nations experts said on Tuesday.

In recent months, U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered strikes on at least six suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, killing at least 27 people. 

The strikes are part of Trump’s ongoing campaign against what he says is a “narcoterrorist” threat emanating from Venezuela and linked to its president, Nicolas Maduro.

The U.N. experts acknowledged Trump’s justification for the military action, but said: “Even if such allegations were substantiated, the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea and amounts to extrajudicial executions.”

The independent experts, who are appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the strikes violate the South American country’s sovereignty and the United States’ “fundamental international obligations” not to intervene in domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country.

“These moves are an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region,” they said in a statement.

Keep reading

Portugal Bans Burqa: Is It Really About Women’s Rights?

Portugal has just approved a nationwide ban on full face coverings in public, adding another country to the long list of European nations abolishing burqas and niqabs. Does this protect rights, or restrict them? Is it even about rights at all?

Portugal’s Vote: What Passed

The country’s parliament approved a bill banning face coverings worn for religious or gender-related reasons in most public spaces. The measure targets burqas and niqabs with fines of €200-€4,000 and penalises anyone forcing somebody else to veil with up to three years in prison. Introduced by Chega and backed by centre-right parties, the left-wing parties oppose the bill calling it discriminatory and unnecessary in a country where very few women wear full-face coverings. 

What started 15 years ago in France as a way to tackle specific concerns about identification, social cohesion and security continues to spread further and wider than ever. It currently looks like a victory for those seeking improved cultural integration, but is there a bigger picture to consider?

The List Gets Longer

Here’s a recap of other European countries imposing similar bans in recent years: 

  • France was the first in Europe to enact a nationwide ban on full-face coverings, with the law passed in 2010 and effective from 2011 – it was later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2014 
  • Belgium brought in a national ban in July 2011, with violators facing fines 
  • Bulgaria’s national ban was adopted in 2016 
  • Germany introduced partial bans focused on public servants and official duties in 2017 
  • Austria’s Anti-Face-Veiling Act came into force in October 2017 
  • Denmark passed a national ban in May 2018, effective from August that year 
  • Norway introduced a sectoral ban in schools and universities in 2018 
  • Netherlands brought in a partial national ban in public buildings and transport in August 2019 
  • Switzerland’s nationwide ban was approved by referendum in March 2021, with federal law taking effect in January 2025 

Other countries like Italy, Spain and Luxembourg have local or limited measures rather than blanket national bans. 

What They Say the Ban Does

Supporters of Portugal’s new legislation argue that the measure aims to strengthen public safety, facilitate identification, and promote women’s rights and social integration. Chega’s leadership framed the proposal as a means of protecting women from coercion, maintaining that a woman forced to wear a burqa loses autonomy and becomes objectified. According to the party’s leader, immigrants and others arriving in Portugal must adhere to their social norms, including the expectation that faces be visible in public. Members from supporting parties such as the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative, and CDS-PP cited concerns about identification, public order, and the belief that no tradition or imposition should erase an individual’s presence in society. 

Penalties for breaking this law will result in fines of up to €4,000 in Portugal – the highest in all European countries. Fines are around €150 in France and Austria, and up to 1,000 CHF in Switzerland. 

Is It Really About Security or Women’s Rights?

Supporters brand these bans as pro-women, claiming they protect girls from coercion and affirm equality in public life. Others argue that if the goal were women’s freedom, the policy would centre around choice and support rather than fines and police checks. In practice – especially in Portugal – the ban polices what a tiny minority of women wear, while doing little for victims of abuse or forced marriage who need legal aid, shelters, and community support – not fines for what they wear. 

There’s another angle to consider here too. Keeping in mind that these rules extend beyond just religious clothing, removing face coverings makes everyone machine-readable. As cities roll out CCTV with facial recognition, is the goal to keep everyone trackable? A continent-wide expectation of uncovered faces makes it easier to identify and profile hundreds of millions of people – even though the rule initially looks like it tackles widespread cultural and security concerns.  

Consider protest anonymity, football ultras, or simply masking for privacy in tomorrow’s camera-tracked world. Broad bans today may satisfy voters by targeting religious coverings, but could be diverting attention from the real end-goal. Will it essentially become illegal to hide your face from recognition software in future? 

Keep reading