Blog

Robin Westman named as Minneapolis Catholic school shooter as chilling videos plotting attack are revealed

The shooter who opened fire in the church of a Minneapolis Catholic School, killing two children, has been identified as Robin Westman, 23.

Westman, formerly known as Robert, shot through stained glass windows at the children sitting on the pews inside Annunciation Catholic School’s church at about 8.30am local time Wednesday, officials said. He then turned the gun on himself.

The shooter, who grew up in Richfield, changed his name to Robin in 2020, when he was 17, KARE 11 reported.

His mother was an employee at the school before her 2021 retirement.

Two children aged eight and 10 were killed in the attack and at least 17 other victims – – 14 children and three adults – were injured, according to authorities.

The shooter’s identity was first confirmed by the local outlet KSTP. Officials said they are looking into his motive but said he has no extensive known criminal history.

A now-deleted YouTube account believed to belong to Westman shared what appeared to be a manifesto just hours before the shooting.

Police are looking into the disturbing 20-minute video, according to The New York Post.

The video appeared to show a drawing of a church. It then showed someone stabbing the drawing repeatedly as he quietly says ‘I’m going to kill myself.’

Other clips posted to the YouTube account show gun parts and semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun. The gun parts had the names of other mass shooters written on them.

Police said the gunman parked his vehicle near the school and they will be investigating it as part of their probe.

Officials said in a press conference the shooter was armed with three guns – a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol. He fired all three weapons during the attack, police said.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the shooter approached the side of the church and shot through the windows toward the children sitting in the pews.

It is unclear if the shooter fired any of the weapons from inside the church or carried out the entire mass shooting outside before going inside.

Police said at least two of the church doors appeared to have been blocked by two by fours before the shooting, suggesting the gunman wanted to trap the people inside.

The students at the Catholic grade school had started school on Monday and were attending mass when the shooter stormed the church, which is connected to the school.

Keep reading

The “Wow!” Signal Was Likely From An Extraterrestrial Source, And More Powerful Than We Thought

Anew study has re-examined the famous “Wow!” signal, finding that it likely has an extraterrestrial origin after all, and may have been even more intense than previously believed.

On August 15, 1977, at the Big Ear radio telescope observatory at Ohio State University, a narrowband radio signal was received. A few days later, astronomer Jerry Ehman reviewed the data and noticed the signal sequence, which lasted for a full 72 seconds. In the margin next to the printout, he simply wrote “Wow!”, and thus the puzzling signal had a name that would stick for the next 43 years at least.

The signal has, so far, defied explanation, and that’s not for a lack of trying. Researchers argued the case for it being a comet passing through the area Big Ear was listening to, only for that to be completely refuted about two days later by the team that detected the Wow! signal in the first place, as a comet would have produced a diffuse signal given the large area they cover, rather than the abruptly cut-off signal that was received.

The signal has been a source of speculation in the “aliens are out there” community, and not without reason. No other signal like it has been detected before or since. It was in a range of frequencies close to the hydrogen line, which is relatively free from background noise, making it a good range to pick were we to try and communicate with other civilizations ourselves. On top of that, the team themselves believed it to be a good candidate for extraterrestrial life.

Keep reading

Scottish Girl Arrested For Using Knife And Axe To Ward Off Migrant Stalker

The systematic and engineered destruction of Europe through “multicultural” invasion is heartbreaking to watch.  It is clear, beyond any doubt, that this program spearheaded by progressive politicians (and fake conservative politicians) is designed to crush the spirits of predominantly white, native born citizens still retaining a sense of national pride and cultural heritage.  That is to say, they have become the targets of a government funded terror campaign to subjugate the west.

Starting around 2014, millions of third world migrants have been allowed to flood into Europe’s borders, often encouraged by globalist NGOs, the UN and leftist political leaders within the host countries.  The effects of this decade long campaign have been devastating. 

Violent crime has skyrocketed and migrant “grooming gangs” have spread, targeting underage girls for sexual exploitation.  Rape has become a common problem, which local governments have chosen to ignore.

Just this week an American man visiting Dresden, Germany was stabbed in the face while bravely preventing two migrants from assaulting a pair of women on a tram.  One of the man’s attackers, a Syrian refugee, was arrested by police and then immediately released by prosecutors back onto the streets.

And so the story is repeated, over and over again.  European elites invite third world migrants, largely military age men, into their borders in the name of progressive multiculturalism.  The migrants then attack the native population because their culture tells them Europeans are cattle to be farmed.  Whenever a European dares to speak up or defend themselves, they are slapped down by officials or arrested.  The population slowly becomes apathetic, passive and easier to control because they have no recourse but silence.

At bottom, the migrants are merely an ugly symptom of a bigger disease; the source of the problem is the political oligarchy that is facilitating the multicultural agenda.

Yet another example occurred in Scotland this week with the arrest of a 14-year-old girl who went viral on social media after defending another girl from a migrant man stalking them on video.  The teen can be seen pulling out a kitchen knife and a hatchet and screaming at the man to leave them alone. 

She warns the migrant man “Don’t touch my sister, she’s fucking 12…” 

Keep reading

How Western Media Helped Turn Israel’s Genocide Into ‘Fake News’

Israel’s justification for the mass slaughter of Gaza’s people and their starvation – now officially confirmed as a famine engineered by Israel – was built on a parade of easily discredited lies from the start: of beheaded infants, of babies in ovens, of mass rape.

It should surprise no one that Israel continued advancing similarly outrageous lies as it set about – as all genocidal regimes must do – dismantling the most basic infrastructure of survival for Gaza’s population.

It cut off humanitarian aid delivered by the United Nations agency Unrwa, and destroyed the enclave’s hospitals, while killing, jailing and torturing its medical personnel.

Israel claimed it had documents proving the UN was a front for Hamas – documents it never produced. Meanwhile, all 36 of Gaza’s hospitals have been attacked – attacks whose implicit rationale was that they were built atop Hamas “command and control centres”, though those centres have never been found.

Expanding this narrative, Israel rounded up and jailed the enclave’s leading doctors, who had been working round the clock to treat the endless tide of maimed men, women and children, as supposed “Hamas operatives” in disguise.

Also as any genocidal regime must do – especially one that wishes to uphold the pretence that it is a democracy with the world’s “most moral army” – Israel laboured tirelessly to cast a pall of darkness over its atrocities.

It blocked western journalists from accessing Gaza, and then picked off Palestinian journalists in the enclave one by one, until more than 200 had been assassinated, 11 in the past couple of weeks alone, including contributors to Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera. Others have been forced to flee to safety abroad.

The western press corps, which barely raised a peep about its exclusion for most of the past 22 months of genocide, collectively shrugged its shoulders as its colleagues in Gaza were slowly exterminated. Nothing to see here.

That was until this month, when Israel celebrated an air strike that killed six Palestinian journalists, including the entire five-person team covering Gaza City for Al Jazeera.

The strike’s timing was extremely fortuitous. Israel is calling up 60,000 troops for a last push into the remains of Gaza City, where around one million Palestinians – half of them children – are holed up, being starved to death.

Those civilians will either be killed or rounded up into a concentration camp Israel is calling a “humanitarian city”, close to the border with Egypt. There, they will await their ultimate expulsion – possibly to South Sudan, a failed state where Israel provided the arms that fuelled civil war and violence.

Keep reading

The Smear Campaign Against Trump’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Nominee E.J. Antoni

President Trump’s nomination of economist E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics has triggered those infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome. That’s too bad, because Antoni has some exceptional ideas to modernize economic data collection and reporting. 

Regardless of this latest TDS outbreak, it is time for the Bureau to modernize data collection and use available technology to get markets the most accurate and comprehensive information possible.

I’m no economist. I changed majors from economics to English before my junior year. But I can still hear my late father every month complaining about two things – the inflation report and the jobs report. My dad lived in the markets. CNBC burned like a log fire in our house. And those damn inflation and job reports were always flawed to my dad.

Inflation reports underreported some things and overreported others. The jobs report also has flaws. The current methodology at the Bureau is already flawed. Antoni knows exactly why and could make them better.  

The reports, for example, downplay inflation by underemphasizing things we all consume. 

The jobs report is also often a snow job. Goldman Sachs estimates that upcoming revisions to the Bureau’s 2024 jobs data may show a drop of up to one million jobs.

Antoni notes that the Bureau fails to differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs.  

This methodological failure has masked labor market weakness. After COVID, many Americans began piecing together multiple gigs. America met JD Vance’s grandmother, Mamaw, in “Hillbilly Elegy.” She worked multiple part-time jobs to get by.  

Yet the status quo at the Bureau of Labor Statistics is to count the part-time jobs as full-time jobs.

Changing this flawed methodology, as Antoni suggests, seems sound. 

Antoni has been pushing for refinements to the system from his perch at the Heritage Foundation, where he is the chief economist.

Did I say Heritage Foundation? Indeed, and thus we arrive at another triggering event for the hatred of Antoni. He comes from the premier conservative think tank, not the halls of Harvard. 

To sink Antoni’s nomination, his foes have turned to a ninety-year-old ship. 

Full disclosure. When I was a child, I built plastic model airplanes. My models included the ME-109, the iconic fighter in the Luftwaffe, as well as the RAF Spitfire. These two planes dueled over the skies of southern England to decide the fate of Western civilization. I even built models of the stubby, ridiculous-looking ME-163 Komet. You could buy the plastic model kits at the mall toy store for about $5. I don’t remember if they included the authentic swastika decals or if I threw them out. Even more damaging for my career, I displayed the models on my bookcase!

What does this have to do with Antoni, a naval history enthusiast? 

Keep reading

When the Russia ‘Experts’ Get It Wrong

The Western punditariat’s commentary on Russia is spectacularly ill-informed. This should be expected from mainstream journalists whose employment relies on the very ignorance they so readily espouse, but there is no excuse for those who promote themselves as “experts” and use this alleged expertise to help craft Western policy towards Russia.

A case in point is Michael McFaul, the Stanford Professor whose claim to fame is serving as Obama’s ambassador to Moscow. In a recent post on his Twitter account, McFaul linked to a Foreign Affairs article he penned in December of last year, outlining how he believed the incoming Trump administration could end the war in Ukraine. As is no surprise, the ambassador and NATO enthusiast recommended the suicidal strategy of admitting Ukraine into the alliance. Yet this is far from the most egregious misstep McFaul made in this piece, as he committed several factual errors that are inexcusable for someone of his experience and purported expertise.

It has become an article of faith in the West that Ukraine made a catastrophic folly in the mid-1990s by surrendering its nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for security guarantees in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. McFaul repeats this conventional wisdom, stating that “the United States offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for Kyiv’s handing over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow.”

There is, however, just one problem with this piece of commentary: it isn’t true. Kiev couldn’t hand over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow because it didn’t have a nuclear arsenal to begin with. Ukraine’s much-vaunted nuclear deterrent was, in actual fact, Soviet nuclear weapons that happened to be stationed on Ukrainian soil. Even post-independence, Moscow retained full control of these systems. Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, then, was as much Ukrainian as American nuclear systems stationed throughout Europe are European. All debates about whether Kiev could have deterred the Russian invasion had it not signed the Budapest Memorandum are, therefore, redundant. As someone who’s bragged about making close to a million dollars a year for his supposed insights on Russia, McFaul should know better than to entertain these debates.

In fairness to McFaul, he did at least get one thing right when he said Washington offered Ukraine security assurances. Often used synonymously with guarantees, the word assurances was very carefully and deliberately selected language by Washington to ensure they would not be legally-bound to come to Ukraine’s defense, as the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer has explained:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”

So, when former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said on a recent appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored that the U.S. is essentially “giving up” on the Budapest Memorandum by failing to come to Ukraine’s aid, he is demonstrating quite a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the agreement. Clark additionally fails to mention that Washington had made their desire to “give up” on the Budapest Memorandum very clear long before the 2022 invasion. A key component of the memorandum is for the signatories of Russia, the U.S., and U.K. to refrain from exercising “economic coercion” against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two also had Soviet nuclear weapons that they agreed to transfer, and signed their own separate versions of the memorandum to do so).

As early as 2006, the United States and its British partners acted in complete defiance of this commitment, sanctioning the government of Belarus. Washington placed further sanctions on Minsk in 2013, justifying this on the grounds that their pledges in the Budapest Memorandum were “not legally binding.” Feeling liberated from any legal constraints, Washington also imposed sanctions against the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, which complemented their blatant interference in the country’s internal affairs during the Maidan revolution. Such a move was a clear violation of  the Budapest pledge to respect Ukraine’s “independence and sovereignty.”

Clark may profit from studying this and much else of the post-Soviet record. In addition to peddling mainstream dogma about the Budapest Memorandum, the general also repeated the Western media favourite that Putin wants to reconstitute the borders of the Soviet Union. As he put it, “From the time Vladimir Putin became prime minister and later president, he wanted to restore the Soviet Union’s space and territory.”

Keep reading

Kamala’s Revenge: Harris Screwed the Democrats So Badly I Can’t Stop Laughing

It’s the story of a failed presidential candidate who raised record sums, left record debt, lost anyway, and gave her party the finger when it needed her most.

It’s called “Kamala’s Revenge,” and it’s the kind of razor-sharp political comedy that Hollywood hasn’t dared make since 1997’s “Wag the Dog.”

The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is even wilder than Chauncey Gardiner in “Being There” from 1979. If you need a refresher, Peter Sellers played a simpleton named Chance who was raised in total isolation by a wealthy man in D.C. When the old man dies and Chance is forced out on the street — wearing the old man’s very nice suit — “Chance the gardener” is mistaken for “Chauncey Gardiner,” and he is soon dispensing advice to Washington’s rich and powerful.

It’s an all-time favorite movie, but it has nothing on “Kamala’s Revenge.”

The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is that the vice president is a totally inept (not to mention comically inapt) DEI hire who, when the senescent president is forced out of his reelection campaign by his own party’s elders, finds herself with just 107 days to scrape together a presidential campaign. 

I know this sounds too crazy for fiction, but bear with me — it gets crazier.

Despite running the shortest presidential campaign in history, Kamala (with a big assist from the media and various celebrities) raises a record $1.5 billion but blows through it all and then some. She goes down in major defeat, but according to this political news site in the movie — it’s called Axios or something — months later, her party had to pony up “more than $15 million toward paying off [her] campaign expenses.”

Crazy, right? But “Kamala’s Revenge” has only begun mining its comedy gold. 

Thanks to Kamala’s debts and some massive fundraising by the other side, Axios says that her party doesn’t even have $20 million in the bank, but the other party — headed up by the bad guy she lost to — is sitting on a massive $80 million war chest.

So the bad guys run attack ads, boost their social media presence — all the smart political stuff Kamala’s party used to dominate. Instead, they’re just flailing around, talking about stolen lands, letting illegal immigrant wife-beaters out of jail, sticking male sex offenders in girls’ bathrooms, and all this other crazy stuff you’d never believe.

But it gets wilder.

“Some donors,” Axios says, “have grown reluctant” to give Kamala’s party more money even as they try to “pivot to the 2026 midterms.”

The party is searching under the sofa cushions for cash at this point. They’re so desperate that their elders go back to Kamala for help. She agrees to let the party use “her email list to help raise money and has held a few small fundraising events. But the total money raised from the events has been disappointing.”

Disappointing to them, of course, but audiences can’t stop laughing. 

The kicker, though, is in one of the final scenes. When the email list fails to accomplish much, party organizers go to Kamala and beg her to personally host the kind of big fundraisers she pulled off during her campaign — but she tells them no.

Kamala’s team “believes she’s done her part” by blowing $1.5 billion on a losing presidential race and leaving her party millions in debt.

Keep reading

Watch Chicago Mayor Johnson Repeatedly Refuse to Answer When Asked if More Police Would Reduce Crime in the City

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday morning and repeatedly refused to answer when host Joe Scarborough asked him if more police would reduce crime in the city.

The entire conversation was predicated on the idea that Trump may send federal forces to the crime-torn city and Scarborough was trying so hard to tee up the ball for Johnson, almost outright urging him to give the obvious answer, but Johnson just refused to respond.

When he finally did offer an answer, it was all about other issues like affordable housing and social welfare spending. He is such a disaster of a mayor.

FOX News has details:

Chicago mayor repeatedly dodges MSNBC questions about whether city needs more police

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson dodged repeated questions from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Tuesday about whether an increased police presence in the city would help cut down on crime.

“Do you believe that the streets of Chicago would be safer if there were more uniformed police officers on the streets of Chicago?” Scarborough asked Johnson.

Scarborough posed the question to the liberal Chicago mayor multiple times. Johnson instead emphasized the need for expanded social programs, including affordable housing.

“I believe the city of Chicago and cities across America would be safer if we actually had, you know, affordable housing. Look, I’m not saying—” Johnson began, before Scarborough cut him off, noting it wasn’t the question he had asked.

Scarborough pressed again, asking if more officers would reduce crime. Johnson said it shouldn’t be narrowed down to police alone, calling that an “antiquated approach.”

“Are you hearing what I’m saying?” Scarborough pressed again.

Keep reading

Convicted NZ mosque murderer Brenton Tarrant was an intelligence operative

FBI Director Kash Patel travelled to New Zealand July 31, 2025 to open a dedicated law enforcement attaché office in Wellington. While the FBI has stationed personnel in New Zealand for several years, establishing a full legat position in the country will strengthen and enhance the longstanding cooperation with a key Five Eyes partner in the southwestern Pacific region. 

“The FBI has had a strong relationship and collaborated closely with our counterparts in New Zealand for years,” said Director Patel.

“Expanding the Wellington office demonstrates the strength and evolution of our partnership as we continue to work together to address our shared security objectives in the region.”

Although Kash Patel’s recent visit has not heralded any major incident in New Zealand there was an occasion when visiting US officials did precede an alleged mass shooting.

John Podesta, Hilary Clinton’s campaign manager and Obama counsel, arrived in New Zealand five days before the mosque massacre March 15, 2019 along with two members of the National Security Council. The number 14 emblazoned on the receiver of the rifle used by Tarrant coincides with ’14’ on Podesta’s right hand. The Christian fish symbol, known as an Ichthys, is an ancient symbol representing Jesus Christ

Now disgraced FBI Director James Comey flew into Queenstown on April 23, 2017 preceding a visit by suspected satanist John “mangled fingers” Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager and Obama counsel, who coincidentally visited New Zealand March 10, 2019, five days before the infamous mosque shootings in Christchurch.

Podesta was attending a Global Progressives conference, heaping praise on Ardern while warning of a potential major online hack against her coming election?

The New Zealand Herald reported two members of the United States National Security Council visited New Zealand days before a media conference on March 10, 2019 where PM Ardern confirmed the Americans had visited, just five days before the massacre.

Ardern said the visitors were Asia defence experts—Matt Pottinger and Alexander Gray, but did not elaborate why they were in New Zealand.

At the media briefing a reporter asked Ardern, “Yesterday Podesta told us that New Zealand being a member of the Five Eyes network, New Zealand is a juicy target for cyber-attacks that could undermine our democracy. Do you agree with that?”

Ardern replied: “Oh, look, we’re not complacent, and certainly you will have heard me say that many, many times. We do need to make sure that we have the protection in place in NewZealand, either for direct attacks but also where New Zealand may be caught up indirectly.

“And so, regardless of what anyone else thinks or what any other member of Five Eyes thinks, we actually need to make sure that we’re prepared and vigilant.”

New Zealand’s mosque shooting happened on March 15, 2019, five days after the Podesta and two National Security members’ visit, and was allegedly carried out by an Australian shooter who has proven to be an Israei-trained assassin on a watch list since 2012. The assassin presented a real threat to then Iraqi President Bashar Assad according to Veterans Today.

Keep reading

Fulton County Board of Commissioners Defy Court Order – Refuse to Appoint Republican Election Board Nominees – Contempt Hearing Today

Last week, a judge ordered the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to seat two Republican Party nominees: Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.  The two were nominated in May but have yet to be seated.

Two of the Democrat members, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, were able to thwart Commissioner Bridget Thorne’s motion to confirm the two Republican appointees.  Because of the absence of three other members on the seven-member board, the motion was blocked in a 2-2 vote.

On August 4th, Judge David Emerson ordered the two nominees be confirmed as per Georgia law, which states that the the board’s members “shall be appointed” by the “chairperson of the county executive committee of the political party” of whichever party has the “largest number of votes in this state for members of the General Assembly”.

In that order, Judge Emerson stated, “The respondent Board of Commissioners (BOC) contends the “shall” is not mandatory, but rather “directory”, and that the county commissioners can exercise discretion to reject any nominee for any reason.”

The commissioners filed a request to reconsider, which was denied.  So they filed an emergency motion with the Georgia Supreme Court, who moved the docket to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  The appeals court denied the motion as well.

Today, at 9am, a hearing will take place regarding the two members who voted against the appointments, and a third who was not present but is also refusing to appoint the two despite the Court’s orders.

Commissioners Dana Barrett, Mo Ivory, and Marvin Harrington still refuse to vote for the appointments.

Barrett, who has served on the board since November 2022, took to Instagram to post a video calling Frazier and Adams, the Republican nominees, “election deniers” and acknowledging that the Court has ruled against her and her colleagues.  “Our elections are under attack,” she said, before invoking Texas and President Trump’s movement to eliminate universal mail-in balloting and untrustworthy black-box voting machines.

Keep reading