Blog

Stabbed 20 Times in Back of Neck and HeadOfficials Re-Confirm … Suicide

Ellen Greenberg’s 2011 death is officially ruled a suicide — again — the ruling coming after the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office dug back in for a second look at the case in which a woman was found with multiple stab wounds in the back of her head and neck.

The ruling is sure to spark major controversy … Greenberg, a 27-year-old Philly teacher, was found dead by her fiancé in 2011 … she’d been stabbed 20 times in the back of her neck and head, with a knife protruding from her chest. Her death was initially ruled a homicide … but after a meeting with Philly PD, assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Marlon Osbourne determined she died by suicide.

Fast-forward to February 2025 … under pressure from Greenberg’s family, the medical examiner’s office revisited the case … and is maintaining the same manner of death.

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Lindsay Simon re-examined the case and, in a 32-page report released Oct. 10, concluded, “while the distribution of injuries is admittedly unusual, the fact remains that Ellen would be capable of inflicting these injuries herself.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports Simon discovered 20 more bruises on Greenberg’s body, and three more “perforations in the skin” that hadn’t been documented in the original autopsy … but still ruled her death a suicide.

The decision is definitely stirring the pot again … people are asking the obvious — how does someone stab themselves over and over in the back and head and call it suicide?

TMZ reached out to the Medical Examiner for an explanation on how they think Ellen could’ve done it herself … so far, no word back.

Keep reading

DeSantis Admits Marijuana Legalization Is Popular With Florida Voters Even Though He Opposes It

The Republican governor of Florida is conceding that “more people probably agreed” with a marijuana legalization ballot initiative he helped defeat last year than sided with his prohibitionist viewpoint—but he argued that it was the “morally right” choice for him to intervene to prevent the sale of “dangerous stuff” in his state.

At an event hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute on Saturday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) talked about his administration’s uphill work to dissuade voters from approving both the cannabis measure as well as a separate reproductive rights initiative during the November 2024. While both initiatives received majority support from voters, they failed to meet the state’s high 60 percent threshold required to enact constitutional amendments.

In the speech, DeSantis claimed that the marijuana proposal, Amendment 3, wouldn’t just have legalized cannabis but also made it a “constitutional right to possess and smoke it, including in public,” while giving one company in particular “a lot of benefits,” seemingly referring to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign’s largest financier Trulieve.

“Somehow you got people that are going to spend a lot of money to basically make us California through the back door with these initiatives and these amendments,” DeSantis said. “The marijuana people spent $150 million on this. The abortion people spent $130 million. So we had to contend with $280 million of spending on very misleading language—and, let’s just be honest, they were pushing issues in which probably more people agreed with them than agreed with me or agreed with us.”

“Marijuana was somewhat popular,” the governor said in comments first reported by Florida Politics. “I didn’t do it to be popular. I did it because it was the right thing to do. So we were having to deal with navigating all this.”

Despite raising money to finance ads opposing the cannabis measure, DeSantis said governors don’t officially “have a role in these amendments.” He faulted “special interest” parties and the state Supreme Court approval of the initiative language that he described as a “mistake.”

“I mean, most people that get elected in my positions like mine, all their advisors say, ‘stay away from this. There’s nothing for you to gain by getting involved in this. All you’re going to do is alienate supporters,’” he said. “And that may be true, but that also wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It wouldn’t be the morally right thing to do. So I was in a position. I had this platform as governor. I had a megaphone. There were things being proposed that would be harmful for my state.”

“In terms of the marijuana, I mean, you can’t function as a state if you smell marijuana everywhere—if these kids are doing it,” DeSantis said. “And this isn’t the marijuana they had in Woodstock. This is really, really dangerous stuff, so it would have been terrible for Florida.”

Keep reading

Legalized Mass Murder & the Balkans

Trump is on the WRONG side of this war with Russia, and this is the most significant risk of taking us into World War III. You cannot deal with the Balkans as if it were any other place in the world. The region has experienced centuries of imperial domination, forced religious conversion, and forced assimilation. Because these groups lived side-by-side for so long, their grievances are almost exclusively against each other. A Serb’s historical trauma is often linked to a Croat or an Ottoman (Bosniak), and vice versa. There is a cyclical pattern of eternal vengeance in the Balkans. The violence of the 1940s was avenged in the 1990s, creating a seemingly endless cycle where each generation feels it must settle the score for the last.

Then there has been the political manipulation—the most critical factor in the modern era. The hatred was not a spontaneous outburst; it was carefully, deliberately, and ruthlessly manufactured by elites for political gain over time. Bandera of Ukraine launched his ethnic cleansing to terminate anyone without Ukrainian blood to forge their own country, which today are the Neonazis who still market and display Bandera’s image following his call for ruthless ethnic cleansing. His image dominated the Maidan Revolution of 2014.

In conclusion, the ethnic hatred in the Balkans is a tragic story of how deep historical fault lines, when combined with the modern political tool of nationalism and weaponized by unscrupulous leaders, can be exploded into catastrophic violence. It is a stark warning about the power of history and the danger of politicians who use ethnic identity as a weapon. The West is now supporting the followers of Adolf Hitler. The ethnic hatred of the Ukrainians toward Russians started the separation movement of the Donbas when they were killing Russian-speaking people in Odessa, and the West turned a blind eye because the victims were Russians.

Keep reading

Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Study Finally Sees the Light of Day — And the Results Are Staggering

Health journalist and film producer Del Bigtree has just released his new film An Inconvenient Study, which follows Bigtree’s years-long exchange with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, a doctor who is about as pro-vaccine as they come.

In 2016, Dr. Zervos crossed paths with Bigtree, who urged him to take on something public health had avoided for decades: a study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Dr. Zervos agreed, determined to prove Bigtree and other vaccine skeptics wrong. At the time, he vowed, “Whatever the results, they get published.”

Both the buried study and the film are now available for everyone to see.

Before diving into Zervos’s findings, the film laid out prior evidence raising serious questions about vaccine safety.

One striking example came from Dr. Peter Aaby. Once a vaccine believer, Dr. Aaby became a skeptic after discovering that the DTP vaccine he helped promote for African children led to 2.3 times higher mortality among the vaccinated.

Decades after launching the DTP program in Guinea-Bissau, Dr. Aaby realized only half the children there had received the shot — giving him a perfect comparative study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The DTP vaccine did protect against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but there was also more than a twofold increase in overall mortality. The results stunned Aaby, who now speaks openly about what he discovered.

“It’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing. We don’t,” he now teaches.

Keep reading

Unhinged Oklahoma State University Professor Placed on Leave After Threatening and Reprimanding Student Who Spoke at Event Honoring Charlie Kirk

An Oklahoma State University student says he was reprimanded and threatened by a university staffer simply for wearing a Turning Point USA “47” hat while speaking in honor of Charlie Kirk.

Joshua Wilson, a junior and Senate University Chairman at OSU, says the confrontation came out of nowhere during a routine one-on-one meeting with a student government coordinator, News9 reported.

What started as a heartfelt tribute to Kirk, who was assassinated by a radical leftist, quickly devolved into a chilling lecture on “triggered” family members and veiled warnings about his future at the university.

Wilson said the hat, a white ball cap emblazoned with a gold “47” (for Donald Trump as the 47th President) and the Turning Point USA logo, wasn’t intended as a political statement.

He and a friend decided to speak briefly at a student government meeting to honor Charlie Kirk, who had visited the campus earlier this year as part of his Turning Point USA Campus Tour.

“Me and my friends were so distraught, but the first kind of thought that came to our mind was, ‘What do other students kind of think right now?” Wilson told News9. “If we’re this pained by it, if we’re worried about what may happen to us also, what are other students worried about?”

Donning their TPUSA hats, they stepped up to remind their peers that open dialogue, not censorship, is the bedrock of America.

“We thought, OK, we have our turning point hats, let’s go to student government and show our constituents they don’t have to be afraid to have a conversation and to speak about what they believe in, and that’s what we did,” Wilson said.

“It wasn’t something that was partisan. It wasn’t something that we were supporting Trump, you know, but it was a hat that symbolized that conversation is what built this country, what should maintain it.”

During the meeting, Wilson said his message was met with applause and support. No one, including the staff member who would later reprimand him, voiced any objections at the time.

“For me personally, it has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever, it’s just something I got at an event that meant a lot to me,” Wilson said.

“In that meeting, I hope that with the student government where I was giving my speech, I hope it was expressed that was not the issue, not partisan politics, but just the issue or the crux of the idea of why I brought the hat to campus was that students shouldn’t feel afraid, and we can go forward.”

A week later, Wilson said he was summoned to a private meeting by the staffer who had been present at his speech. He described feeling threatened and cornered.

During the meeting, which Wilson recorded and obtained by News9, the staffer admitted she was offended by his attire, saying:

“I have family who don’t look like you who are triggered by those hats and by that side.”

Wilson said he calmly explained that his hat was not about partisan politics, but about honoring free speech and the First Amendment. The staffer allegedly replied that if he “questioned that belief,” his year “might not be easy.”

Keep reading

Trump’s plan, Blair’s hand

Those who don’t die will meet again

There is an old saying that goes, “Those who don’t die will meet again,” which somehow fits politicians perfectly, because sooner or later, they all reappear on the political scene.

In fact, shortly after the announcement of the formal recognition of Palestine as a state, the United Kingdom sent former Prime Minister Tony Blair with the task of hindering the Palestinian self-determination process, in accordance with the so-called “Peace Agreement” of then-US President Donald Trump. A truly masterful move.

This decision once again highlighted the usual hypocrisy and colonial mentality of Washington, London, and, more generally, the West.

Who remembers Tony Blair?

It is worth giving a brief summary, because his presence is by no means a random choice.

The Middle East knows Blair well, especially for his infamous conduct during the 2003 Iraq War, alongside then-US President George W. Bush, leader of the so-called “war on terror.” On the strength of false accusations about weapons of mass destruction, Blair dragged Britain into a conflict that caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, earning himself a well-deserved reputation as a war criminal. Nothing new, you might say, since the United Kingdom has been an imperialist entity for a long time.

This confirms that Blair is the last person who should appear in an organization called the “Peace Council.”

While Bush retired to a quiet life painting dogs and portraits of Vladimir Putin, Blair continued to make himself indispensable in the Middle East—and to reap considerable profits from it. After resigning as prime minister in 2007, he was appointed special envoy of the international “Quartet” – composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – officially committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A coincidence? No, not at all: the choice of an emissary with close ties to Israel made any progress towards genuine peace impossible, which shows us how much it was in the interests of the Western powers to maintain a certain tension in the region. At the same time, Blair’s diplomatic activities were intertwined with a network of extremely lucrative business deals in the region: consulting for Arab governments and private assignments, such as the one he took on in 2008 as senior advisor to the American investment bank JP Morgan, which paid him over $1 million a year.

No philanthropy, no spirit of humanitarian aid. When Blair attended meetings in the Middle East, no one knew which Tony Blair they were dealing with: the Quartet envoy, the founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, or the head of the consulting firm Tony Blair Associates.

On the other hand, the beauty of conflicts of interest is that they always pay off well.

For example, in 2009, he obtained radio frequencies from Israel to create a mobile phone network in the West Bank, in exchange for a commitment from the Palestinian leadership not to bring accusations of Israeli war crimes to the UN for Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008, during which approximately 1,400 Palestinians were killed in 22 days. Blair had private economic interests linked to that agreement: both Wataniya and JP Morgan had a lot to gain from the opening of the telecommunications market in the West Bank.

It is therefore easy to imagine that Blair will also have a certain interest in Trump’s plan for Palestine, perhaps with his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, committed to “changing the world,” perhaps by helping Israel and the United States build the infamous 5-star resort that businessman Donald Trump has long dreamed of, as if capitalism and the tyranny of foreign investors could suffice for the Palestinians in place of freedom and security.

It therefore seems that the West’s “brilliant idea” (sic!) is once again to entrust the fate of Gaza to international war criminals. Not bad, right?

Today, Blair appears not simply as an “advisor,” but as an official charged with protecting the joint interests of Israel and the West in Gaza and managing the post-war transition phase.

Tony Blair’s experience in Iraq is a clear sign of his unreliability on the Palestinian question.

During the US invasion in 2003, thousands of civilians were killed and entire cities were destroyed. Blair, who convinced President Bush to wage that war, admitted years later that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the military campaign had been based on falsified intelligence reports.

Despite these admissions, no international court has ever tried him for the serious violations of international law he committed.

Today, paradoxically, the same person is being proposed as a key figure in the “reconstruction” of Gaza, based on a supposed peace plan that in fact only protects Israeli interests.

Keep reading

Northern Territory bans men from women’s prisons

The Northern Territory Chief Minister has announced a ban on men in women’s prisons in response to a bizarre situation where inmates around Australia are being housed based on gender delusions rather than biological reality.

Lia Finocchi­aro spoke out after a paedophile who sexually abused his own daughter was placed in a women’s jail in Victoria because he claims to be a woman, and a female prisoner in South Australia was raped by her violent gender-deluded male cellmate.

The Chief Minister also insisted there were no men in the NT’s jails, where aboriginals make up 90% of the adult prison population and almost 100% of youth detainees, and said she wouldn’t be “confused by this woke agenda driven by Labor governments”.

“There should be no men in women’s prisons, full stop. I can tell you now, here in the Northern Territory there are no blokes in women’s jails and we’re not having that here, not on my watch,” she told The Australian.

“We’ve got really clear guidelines around this. Labor had a weaker process but we want to make it really clear that if you are a man and you’re fundamentally equipped as a man, if I could put it that way, then you belong in a men’s prison.

“If you’re born a bloke, you go into a men’s prison. At the end of the day, this is really about women’s safety. It’s about women’s dignity.”

She went on to describe placing men who claim to be “transgender” in women’s prisons as “absurd” and “our nation’s shame”, and accused Labor state governments of being “obsessed with social engineering” and pursuing “ideologically driven law and policy”.

Ms Finocchi­aro made the announcement following a letter from Women’s Forum Australia to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and every state and territory leader objecting to the practice of placing inmates in jails based on their so-called gender identities.

“This practice is dangerous, dehumanising and in direct violation of international human rights standards,” Women’s Forum Australia chief Rachael Wong wrote.

Keep reading

‘WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER’: A Day After His Photo With Victim Virginia Giuffre Surfaced, Prince Andrew Wrote Email to Jeffrey Epstein Saying They Would ‘Play Some More Soon’

Barely a week goes by without a new Epstein-linked revelation hurting even more of Andrew’s battered reputation.

On February 27, 2011, the British paper Mail on Sunday published the infamous picture of Prince Andrew with late Jeffrey Epstein’s victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell in her Belgravia home in London.

A day later, Andrew secretly wrote pedophile Epstein ‘we are in this together, according to a previously unreleased bombshell email.

Daily Mail reported:

“In the astonishing message, Andrew said he was ‘concerned’ about the impact this newspaper’s revelations would have on his friend, but reassured the vile billionaire that the pair would ‘rise above’ press scrutiny.”

This message was sent to Epstein three months after Andrew alleged to have ceased all contact with the convicted sex offender.

“The leaked email provides definitive proof that the Duke lied in his interview with BBC’s Newsnight when he claimed he ‘never had any contact’ with Epstein after the pair were famously pictured walking together in New York’s Central Park in December 2010.”

The damaging email has generated further pressure on the Windsor Royal Family to sever all ties with Andrew and Sarah Ferguson.

“’I’m just as concerned for you! Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Otherwise keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!’”

In his ‘train-wreck’ BBC Newsnight interview in 2019, Andrew also suggested the picture with Giuffre was a ‘crude forgery’ but in his email sent a day after the release of the photograph, the Duke did not question its authenticity.

Keep reading

JP Morgan’s Biometric Mandate Signals New Era Of Workplace Surveillance In Finance

When employees begin reporting to JPMorgan Chase’s new Manhattan headquarters later this year, they will be required to submit their biometric data to enter the building.

The policy, a first among major U.S. banks, makes biometric enrollment mandatory for staff assigned to the $3 billion, 60-story tower at 270 Park Avenue.

JPMorgan says the system is part of a modern security program designed to protect workers and streamline access, but it has sparked growing concern over privacy, consent, and the expanding use of surveillance technology in the workplace.

Internal communications reviewed by the Financial Times and The Guardian confirm that JPMorgan employees assigned to the new building have been told they must enroll their fingerprints or undergo an eye scan to access the premises.

Earlier drafts of the plan described the system as voluntary, but reports say that language has quietly disappeared. A company spokesperson declined to clarify how data will be stored or how long it will be retained, citing security concerns. Some staff reportedly may retain the option of using a badge instead, though the criteria for exemption remain undisclosed.

The biometric access requirement is being rolled out alongside a Work at JPMC smartphone app that doubles as a digital ID badge and internal service platform, allowing staff to order meals, navigate the building, or register visitors.

According to its listing in the Google Play Store, the app currently claims “no data collected,” though that self-reported disclosure does not replace a formal employee privacy notice.

In combination, the app and access system will allow the bank to track who enters the building, when, and potentially how long they stay on each floor, a level of visibility that, while defensible as security modernization, unsettles those wary of the creeping normalization of biometric surveillance in the workplace.

Executives have promoted the new headquarters as the “most technologically advanced” corporate campus in New York, and that it is designed to embody efficiency and safety. Reports suggest that the decision to make biometrics mandatory followed a series of high-profile crimes in Midtown, including the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Within the bank, the justification has been framed as protecting employees in a volatile urban environment.

Yet, the decision thrusts JPMorgan into largely uncharted territory. No other major U.S. bank has been publicly documented as requiring its employees to submit biometric data merely to enter a headquarters building.

Keep reading