Blog

Why did the BBC call Charlie Kirk ‘far right’?

‘Mr Kirk built a huge and devoted following for his far-right views’, said the BBC’s North America editor Sarah Smith on Sunday. The statement came during the BBC’s coverage of Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Arizona, which was attended by tens of thousands of mourners and was addressed by US president Donald Trump.

Smith’s statement is nothing short of astonishing. It would be one thing for blue-haired keyboard warriors on Bluesky to be referring to dead conservatives as fascists. But it is quite another for the UK’s state broadcaster to toe that same line. The BBC pays Smith more than £200,000 a year to report impartially on American affairs. We would hope someone in her esteemed position might pause for thought before smearing a man who was killed for his beliefs.

The BBC isn’t alone in painting Kirk as ‘far right’. In the days following his murder, mainstream media rushed to portray him and his views as beyond the pale. The Guardian, like the BBC, described Kirk as ‘far right’, as well as a man who ‘stood for the darker themes of… US nativism’. The New York Times accused Kirk of leading a ‘hard-right youth movement’. It was also forced to make a correction after falsely attributing an anti-Semitic quote to him.

Needless to say, this is all pretty grotesque. Kirk has just been murdered – seemingly by a genuine extremist. Wittingly or not, smearing him as a fascist, dehumanising him in death, comes dangerously close to justifying or at least sanitising his killing.

In truth, none of Kirk’s political stances could be seen as ‘far right’ in any other time except the strange epoch we live in. Defending the US First Amendment, opposing abortion, being in favour of meritocracy and insisting that men cannot become women are not unusual stances for Christian conservatives or US Republicans. You do not have to agree with these positions to recognise they do not make someone far right.

Keep reading

New war power bill gives Trump sweeping authority to attack dozens of nations: Report

Legislation has been drafted that would give US President Donald Trump unchecked power to wage war against drug cartels as well as any nation he says has harbored or aided them, the New York Times (NYT) reported on 23 September, citing people familiar with the matter.

If passed, the legislation would allow the US president to deem as “terrorists” any groups that have trafficked in drugs or financed drug-related enterprises. The president would then have the authorization to use military force against such groups and any governments allegedly harboring them.

The US military carried out attacks this month on three boats that Trump claims were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea. The strikes killed 17 people and were widely criticized as illegal. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

NYT notes that the draft legislation appears to be modeled on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress granted former US president George W. Bush to launch the so-called “War on Terror” after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

While theoretically passed to allow the US to target Al-Qaeda and its hosts in Afghanistan, the broad nature of the AUMF allowed the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations to invade Iraq and to target Islamic militant groups in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen many times over a period stretching decades.

Neither the AUMF nor the new draft legislation being considered names a specific enemy. The president is therefore empowered to attack any group, anywhere, in an open-ended war.

NYT stated that this raises the question of whether Congress was giving Trump the “authority to wage a regime change war in Venezuela.”

In addition to striking the three boats, Trump has ordered additional US warplanes and naval ships to the Caribbean, while also accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading a drug cartel.

In July, Trump signed a still-secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels, NYT added.

The Institute for Responsible Statecraft stated that the legislation could be used to justify US military intervention in at least 60 countries.

In comments given to NYT, Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith called the draft legislation “insanely broad,” essentially “an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations, and persons that the president could deem within its scope.”

Keep reading

Antifa’s Allies Under Legal Threat: Trump Designation Makes Supporting Antifa a Crime

Antifa is a loose network of militant activists rather than a single, centralized organization. The name comes from “anti-fascist,” but its adherents often appear to define fascism as anything they oppose. Many are anarchists, standing against all forms of government, while also claiming to oppose white supremacy, nationalism, authoritarianism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and capitalism.

They frequently use images of World War II U.S. soldiers to suggest they are carrying on that legacy, implying that Americans who don’t support their cause are betraying the memory of American heroes. Yet there is no fascist party in America today. Fascist candidates last appeared on ballots in the 1930s, and there are no major political figures or movements advocating for a totalitarian state or the abolition of democratic institutions. There does not even appear to be evidence of small fringe groups openly calling themselves fascist.

In practice, what Antifa targets are conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and law enforcement, with particular focus on federal immigration enforcement. Documented evidence shows Antifa groups consistently disrupting Republican events, harassing conservative activists, opposing Christian organizations, and attacking police and federal agents—not fascist organizations. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused AOC of supporting Antifa, she pointed specifically to their opposition to ICE and their disruptive actions at Republican gatherings.

The “anti-fascist” label functions as political branding, giving Antifa the appearance of heroic resistance while masking the fact that their true targets are mainstream American political opponents. This mislabeling makes their actions appear more legitimate than if they were accurately described as opposition to Republicans, Christians, and conservatives.

Antifa generally operates in small, local groups across the U.S. and a handful of other countries, with no central leadership. Some, like Rose City Antifa in Portland, are more visible, while others remain underground. Their activities range from researching and exposing far-right individuals to doxxing and pressuring employers to fire them. Some members justify physical confrontation, including “punching Nazis.” They are also known for wearing all-black clothing and masks during protests, where they intimidate conservatives and Christians, damage property, disrupt traffic, block public access, and confront law enforcement. These clashes have sometimes turned deadly, as in a 2020 Portland case where an Antifa-aligned individual was linked to a fatal shooting.

Keep reading

The best mathematical breakdown of the “Man of Steel” theory I have seen

Earlier tonight, I brought you the stunning report that Charlie Kirk had no exit wound because he had “super bones”.

(Article by Noah republished from WLTReport.com)

That a rough paraphrase, but the full report was here in case you missed it:

“Man of Steel”: Coroner Says No Exit Wound Because Bullet Stopped By Charlie Kirk’s Incredibly “Healthy and Dense” Bones

Now I want to advance the story because this is the best analysis I have seen so far.

All credit to Mike Adams for this one, who I believe addressed this very respectfully but also scientifically and mathematically.

Here is Mike’s analysis of the “Superman” claims:

NARRATIVE-BUSTING FACTS: A .30-06 rifle round produces around 3,000+ foot-pounds of energy when fired. (With some loads, it’s even higher.)

This amount of energy can lift a 3,000-lb. object one foot high (hence the name of the unit).

The diameter of a .30-06 Springfield bullet…

— HealthRanger (@HealthRanger) September 21, 2025

NARRATIVE-BUSTING FACTS: A .30-06 rifle round produces around 3,000+ foot-pounds of energy when fired. (With some loads, it’s even higher.)

This amount of energy can lift a 3,000-lb. object one foot high (hence the name of the unit).

The diameter of a .30-06 Springfield bullet is .308 inches (7.82 mm).

This means the actual area of the skin that is struck by the bullet is 0.0745 square inches (pi formula, remember?).

So a .30-06 rifle round delivers 3,000 foot-pounds of energy (or slightly less, as it slows very slightly after leaving the barrel) to an area of human skin that is 0.0745 square inches in total area, which is about the diameter of your pinky finger.

There is no bone in the human body that can survive 3,000 foot-pounds of energy directed into such a small area. Only Wolverine could survive it, but he’s not real.

Anyone who thinks that neck skin, tissue or even bones can stop and absorb such a large amount of energy moving through such a tiny area of tissue is truly delusional. Yet this is now what we’re being told by the same people who claim we should also believe the lone shooter theory.

IMPORTANT: If his neck absorbed 3,000 foot-pounds of energy, the energy had to have gone somewhere. Newton’s laws of motion, duh. High school science. Where did the energy go? Kinetic energy doesn’t just vanish because you wish it away. Low-IQ narrative swallowers failed high school physics.

3,000 foot-pounds of energy is enough to hurl a person the size of Charlie 15 feet into the air, assuming the pressure were applied evenly across his entire body (and assuming he weighed around 200 pounds).

That didn’t happen. The energy vanished. And we’re told his neck stopped 3,000 foot-pounds of energy because Charlie was “healthy.”

There are no doubt a whole bunch of orthopedic surgeons losing their s–t over this claim right now. They know what bones can sustain… and what they can’t. No human neck stops a .30-06 round and absorbs all its energy with no exit wound. Never happened, never will. The physics and anatomy make it impossible. Nobody is Wolverine, and Charlie isn’t Superman (with all due apologies for mixing DC and Marvel universes).

The math ain’t mathin, in other words.

As I said, very respectful and very well-reasoned analysis.

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein Reportedly Threatened to ‘Destroy’ Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew, Prompting the Duchess of York To Write Apologetic Email That Is Now Thrashing Her Reputation

Fergie alleges to have experienced the dark side of Epstein.

We are reporting on all the people around the world who are falling into disgrace because of their close ties to late pedophile and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Right now, controversial Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson is under fire for a resurfaced email she wrote Epstein in which she described him as a ‘steadfast, generous and supreme friend’.

Fergie also ‘humbly apologized’ for criticizing him in public, telling him she understood that he felt ‘hellaciously let down by [her]’.

As a result of the revelations, the Duchess has been dropped as a patron by several charities, such as Julia’s House (children’s hospice); Teenage Cancer Trust; Natasha Allergy Research Foundation; Children’s Literacy Charity; Prevent Breast Cancer; British Heart Foundation; National Foundation for Retired Service Animals.

So, now the York camp has gone to bat on the press, trying to justify her behavior – but it may well backfire and cause even more trouble.

Fergie’s spokesman has told The Telegraph that the incriminating email was a reaction to threats by Epstein, who vowed to ‘destroy her’ using a ‘Hannibal Lecter-style’ voice in a phone call.

“The Duchess’s spokesman told The Telegraph that Epstein was incensed by her description of him as a pedophile and made a ‘chilling’ phone call in which he threatened to take legal action.

‘People don’t understand how terrible Epstein was. I can remember everything about that call. It was a chilling call and I’m surprised anybody was ever friends with him given the way he talked to me. He said he would destroy the York family and he was quite clear on that. He said he would destroy me. He wasn’t shouting. He had a Hannibal Lecter-type voice. It was very cold and calm and really menacing and nasty.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s father is accused of sexually abusing five of his children and stepchildren – including one he allegedly touched when she was four and later had a child with

Elon Musk‘s father has been accused of sexually abusing five of his children and stepchildren since 1993, including one he allegedly touched when she was four years old – who he later had a child with. 

The explosive allegations against Errol Musk, 79, are allegedly why the tech billionaire and Tesla founder has kept his distance from his estranged father over the years.

Despite being outspoken on social media, the 54-year-old mogul has rarely delved into his strained relationship with his father. 

Errol made headlines when he had a baby with his own stepdaughter, who was 40 years younger than him.

The accusations have repeatedly seeped into Elon’s life, reported the New York Times, which has seen more than 50 personal letters and emails and has conducted interviews with relatives.

On several occasions, family members have contacted him for assistance and he has sometimes taken action to intervene, the newspaper said.

The family drama has meant the SpaceX founder has remained tied to South Africa, where he was born and where Errol lives, despite his booming business empire in the U.S and former role in the Trump administration.

Errol is accused of sexually abusing five of his children and stepchildren in South Africa and California, as per police and court records, personal correspondence, social workers and interviews with relatives, The New York Times reported.

The earliest allegation dates back to 1993 when the businessman’s stepdaughter, then four years old, accused him of touching her at a family house.

She told relatives about the incident. A decade later, she said she caught Errol sniffing her dirty underwear.

She said she later had a baby with him when she was in her 20s and has grappled with drug use, while her mother – who married Errol twice – has struggled with mental health issues. 

Other family members have accused him of abusing a stepson and two of his daughters. 

Two years ago, his then five-year-old son accused him of groping his buttocks, causing family members and a social worker to intervene, The New York Times said.

Over the three decades of allegations, three separate police investigations were opened, according to records and relatives cited by The New York Times.

Keep reading

$2.2 billion solar plant in California turned off after years of wasted money: ‘Never lived up to its promises’

Seen from the sky, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert resembles a futuristic dream.

Viewed from the bottom line, however, Ivanpah is anything but.

The solar power plant, which features three 459-foot towers and thousands of computer-controlled mirrors known as heliostats, cost some $2.2 billion to build.

Construction began in 2010 and was completed in 2014. Now it’s set to close in 2026 after failing to efficiently generate solar energy.

In 2011, the US Department of Energy under President Barack Obama issued $1.6 billion in three federal loan guarantees for the project and the secretary of energy, Ernest Moniz, hailed it as “an example of how America is becoming a world leader in solar energy.”

But ultimately, it’s been more emblematic of profligate government spending and unwise bets on poorly conceived, quickly outdated technologies.

“Ivanpah stands as a testament to the waste and inefficiency of government subsidized energy schemes,”Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, an American energy advocacy group, told Fox News via statement this past February. It “never lived up to its promises, producing less electricity than expected, while relying on natural gas to stay operational.”

Keep reading

Trump gives NATO the green light to shoot down Russian jets in sinister warning to Putin

Donald Trump insisted that NATO nations should feel emboldened to shoot down Russian planes if they enter their countries’ airspace.

It comes after Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace this week amid the ongoing war with Ukraine.

Speaking alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at United Nations headquarters on Tuesday, Trump suggested that the U.S. might back-up North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries forced to take action if Russia provokes them. 

‘Do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?’ a reporter asked Trump.

‘Yes I do,’ he replied.

Another reporter asked Trump if the U.S. would ‘backup’ or ‘help out’ NATO allies who did shoot down Russian planes. 

Trump said it ‘depends on the circumstance, but we’re very strong towards NATO.’

World leaders are gathered in New York City this week for the United Nations General Assembly. Trump delivered remarks to the entire body on Tuesday morning and is engaging in bilateral and multilateral meetings through the afternoon – including with Zelensky. 

Trump has grown frustrated with the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine and appears to be losing patience with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s apparent unwillingness to reach a deal.

At his meeting with Zelensky on Tuesday, Trump urged NATO allies to strike Russian aircraft flying over their countries’ borders.

There have been three major instances this month where Russian craft entered the airspace of countries that were not Ukraine.

On September 19, three Russian MiG-31 jets entered Estonian airspace for 12 minutes over the Gulf of Finland. NATO intercepted but did not engage with the aircraft.

Keep reading

Trans Georgia inmate who made bombs and mailed them to DOJ gets 80-year sentence

A person already in prison has been sentenced to 80 years in federal custody after authorities said the inmate built two bombs while behind bars and mailed them to a federal courthouse in Anchorage, Alaska, and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday announced the sentence for the inmate authorities identified as David Dwayne Cassady, 57, who was incarcerated in a state prison in Georgia when the devices were made, authorities said. The inmate pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted malicious use of explosive materials.

The inmate has severe anxiety and gender dysphoria, defense lawyer Tina Maddox wrote in a sentencing memo to the court. The crimes were “acts of desperation born out of unrelenting abuse, hopelessness, and mental distress,” Maddox wrote. The defendant is a transgender woman and now goes by the name Lena Noel Summerlin, the lawyer said in the July 8 court document.

The indictment says both bombs were made at a state prison in Tattnall County, Georgia, and mailed from the prison. The document does not detail how the bombs were built or where the materials were obtained.

The bombs were functional and had the capabilities to explode, a plea agreement states. The inmate admitted to mailing them “in retaliation for prison conditions,” it said.

Since the early 1990s, the inmate has been held in a variety of Georgia prisons after being convicted of more than a dozen crimes including kidnapping and aggravated sodomy, according to records from the Georgia Department of Corrections.

Keep reading

How the CIA Deliberately Allowed Two 9/11 Hijackers Into the US

Tucker Carlson has a new series coming out called “The 9/11 Files”, the first episode of which I stumbled across today on Rumble. It covers how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was tracking two of the alleged hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

The CIA tracked Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar to a meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia, in early 2000 and knew they had visas to enter the US but “failed” to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI also “failed” to learn about the two operatives being in the country despite the pair renting a room in the home of an FBI informant.

The first episode of “The 9/11 Files”, published today, is titled “The CIA’s Secret Mission Gone Wrong“. Here’s the video description:

A former FBI agent who was embedded in the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, Mark Rossini, claims the CIA was fully aware that the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States planning an attack. Rather than inform the FBI, the CIA tried to recruit two of the hijackers for a “false-flag” operation, which quickly spiraled out of control. The failed mission raises urgent questions about government secrecy, intelligence failures, and what really happened before 9/11.

Keep reading