Blog

Bono set out to feed starving kids. He armed bloodthirsty warlords instead…

Many of you will remember that massive Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium back in the ’80s, when everyone was laser-focused on feeding starving kids in Africa.

Bob Geldof became the face of the UK-based “Band Aid” charity, which brought together a lineup of famous musicians to record the iconic “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” Bono was front and center, not just in the song but in the mission itself. It was supposed to launch his big “philanthropy” era.

But instead of feeding hungry Ethiopian children or bringing them holiday cheer, Bono and his Band Aid crew ended up arming bloodthirsty warlords.

Turns out the only people who got Christmas presents in Ethiopia that year were the bad guys, thanks to Bono and friends.

Daily Mail:

The images of starving children flickered across the screen  –  youngsters hardly conscious, possessing not even the energy to bat away the flies descending on their emaciated bodies.

BBC broadcaster Michael Buerk described the scene in Ethiopia 1984 as ‘the closest thing you get to hell on earth’. The famine pictures awoke the conscience of the world. A year later, Britain was host to the biggest fund-raising event of all time, Live Aid.

Who can forget it? At Wembley, and in Philadelphia, pop stars including Queen, David Bowie and George Michael were part of a dazzling line-up determined to feed the world.

And Bob Geldof demanded: ‘Don’t go to the pub tonight  –  please, stay in and give us the money. There are people dying NOW, so give me the money.’

Money poured in. The 16-hour rock concert on July 13, 1985 raised around £65million and was watched by a global audience estimated at 1.5 billion.

It was a moment of hope. But that was then.

Now the BBC has reported that substantial amounts of money  –  some of it raised by Band Aid  –  were siphoned away from relief efforts and went to fund guns for Ethiopian warlords during the Eighties.

Bob Geldof has responded with a vitriolic attack, dismissing the story as ‘total b******s’ and accusing the BBC of a ‘total collapse of standards’. He has branded the BBC World Service a ‘rotten old cherry’.

Geldof can scream and stomp his feet all he wants, but the people who were actually on the ground in Ethiopia are talking, and what they’re saying is very damning. A huge chunk of that Band-Aid money ended up funding the very warlords who were terrorizing the innocent. The Daily Mail piece goes on:

Today, for the first time, the Band Aid man on the ground in Ethiopia speaks out exclusively to The Daily Mail, saying he believes it is possible that up to 20 per cent of donor’s money went to fund the rebels.

Furthermore, he told me that he personally sympathised with the rebel cause he calls ‘a liberating force’, and travelled in convoys he suspected were transporting arms to them.

John James was Band Aid Field Director in Ethiopia from 1985-91 and was awarded an MBE for his charity work. He says: ‘I would be surprised if it were any less than 10-20 per cent of funds were diverted to the rebels.

‘Did I sympathise with the rebels? Yes. We would not have tolerated any direct assistance in the purchase of arms or condoned it, but just remember it was a highly complex situation.’

James, a farmer who is now 85 and living in Devon, adds: ‘I think it is ridiculous for anybody to claim that not one penny of aid money was diverted.

Keep reading

Pentagon redirects missile components from Kiev to own forces – WSJ

The Pentagon has redirected key missile components originally intended for Ukraine’s air defense to American forces in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing a confidential notification sent to Congress last week. The move comes as US President Donald Trump has been winding down support for Ukraine since entering office. 

According to the WSJ, the move concerns proximity fuzes used in ground-based Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) – a guided rocket system that Ukraine has reportedly been using for the past several years to shoot down drones. The fuzes were acquired under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative under former US President Joe Biden. Although funding for the initiative has already been spent, previously approved shipments are still scheduled to arrive in Ukraine later this year and the next.

However, the WSJ has claimed that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the transfer of the fuzes via an internal memo last month, designating it as a “Secretary of Defense Identified Urgent Issue.” The decision was reportedly communicated to the Senate Armed Services Committee, although the Pentagon has declined to comment publicly.

Citing anonymous sources and internal documents, the WSJ said the US Air Force intends to use the reallocated fuzes in rockets mounted on F-16 and F-15E fighter jets. The redirection was permitted under an emergency military spending bill passed last year.

Keep reading

Biden insists ‘I made the decisions’ as Republicans investigate White House autopen use

Former President Joe Biden doubled down on his use of an autopen on Wednesday, insisting that he was in control of the White House during his term in office.

President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into Biden’s administration, alleging that top officials used autopen signatures to cover up the former president’s cognitive decline.

“I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false,” Biden said in a statement.

“This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations,” he added.

Trump called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to open investigations into top Biden officials on Wednesday, arguing they may have conspired to deceive the public about his mental state and exercised presidential authority through use of the autopen.

Keep reading

Deep State Villain John Brennan Suddenly Worried About Politicization of Intel Agencies Under Trump

John Brennan is suddenly worried that the intel agencies might be politicized under President Trump. Funny. He didn’t seem to have that concern during all the years he and others used the deep state to repeatedly attack and smear Trump.

What’s more likely is that Brennan is trying to plant seeds so that he can complain anything that’s found out about him is merely politically motivated.

These people are evil liars.

From the Western Lensman on Twitter/X:

John Brennan, Russiagate Conspirator and Laptop Hoaxer, is worried that the CIA and FBI won’t be “apolitical” under Trump —

— and will no longer attract “principled individuals.”

“It is just so similar to the totalitarian regimes that I saw overseas in terms of making sure that the security services are doing the bidding of the political leader.”

“That’s why I think that the FBI is going to have a tough time attracting individuals that have that type of principled approach to government service.”

Keep reading

“Are You A Covert White Supremacist?” Fireworks Erupt In DOGE Hearing Exposing NGO Funding, Taxpayer “Theft”

In a fiery House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) hearing on June 4, 2025, titled “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild,” Republican lawmakers exposed the “gold bars thrown off the Titanic,” alleging the Biden administration under Democratic control of Congress had siphoned billions in taxpayer dollars to push left-wing policies like open borders and the Green New Deal through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). 

Held at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, the hearing, chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), aimed to expose what Republicans call a corrupt nexus of NGOs, Democratic campaign funds, and bureaucratic cronyism. 

In a fiery exchange, Democrats pushed back with allegations that Republicans are “trying to keep a strong black woman down,” while simultaneously chastising the GOP for not codifying enough DOGE cuts, at the same as alleging Republicans are cutting vital services as part of a partisan witch hunt. Here’s the breakdown of the clash that’s got X buzzing and taxpayers fuming.

Republicans Drop the Hammer on NGO Funding

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) didn’t mince words, calling the allocation of “hundreds of billions” to NGOs under the Biden administration a “CRIME” against Americans. “There’s a difference between true charity and the government forcibly removing money from your pocket and giving it to someone else,” Burlison declared, framing the forcible removal of tax dollars to fund the ideological priorities of NGOs as outright theft.

Keep reading

‘Separation of Powers’ Is The Judiciary’s Bogus Justification For Anti-Trump Lawfare

The Founding Fathers worried the judicial branch was “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.” Yet it seems that in these days of lawfare, the judiciary is quite capable of effectively attacking the other branches of government, particularly the branch headed by President Donald Trump.

A recent lawsuit, filed by the AFL-CIO against the Trump administration, offers the latest example of judicial interference with the executive branch. The lawsuit attacked several federal directives that attempted to reduce the federal workforce and reorganize many executive agencies.

Trump Executive Order is Constitutional

These actions began with Executive Order 14210, issued on February 11, to effect “‘large-scale reductions in force’ (RIFs) and reorganizations.” Trump’s order is completely unsurprising and legitimate.

Republicans have been worried for decades about the size of the federal government. Couple that concern with President Trump’s awareness that partisan actors, working as federal employees, undermine his agenda, and it makes perfect sense that the president would take swift action to reorganize and reduce the size of the executive branch.

In response to President Trump’s order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent memos to executive agencies, beginning a process of reorganizing and reducing the federal workforce. The memos called for changes to the agencies and the elimination of thousands of executive-branch jobs.

The more than 50-page district court opinion, ruling against President Trump and his agencies last month, claimed that the executive branch had overstepped its authority, taking actions that should be reserved to Congress and thus violating the separation of powers. The court issued a shockingly broad order that all executive agency reorganizations and reductions in force must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the actions.

Trump is Governing His Own Branch

The Trump administration’s solicitor general filed an emergency petition to stay the order of the court on June 2, 2025. The petition makes a strong case that these reductions in force are lawful and within the power of the president:

In this case, the district court entered a nationwide injunction that bars nearly the entire Executive Branch — 19 agencies, including 11 Cabinet departments — from implementing an Executive Order that directs agencies to prepare plans to execute lawful reductions in the size of the federal workforce. That injunction rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch. But “[u]nder our Constitution, the ‘executive Power’—all of it—is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be 2 faithfully executed.’” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020) (quoting U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, Cl. 1; id. § 3). Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland of this authority. The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the President does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers. See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 607-609 (2024).

The Trump administration is absolutely right. Of course, conservatives value the separation of powers. But the claim that separation of powers prevents the president from reducing or reorganizing workers within the executive branch of government is false.

President Trump is trying to manage his own branch of government. There is no argument for the separation of powers between the executive branch of government and . . . the executive branch of government. This needs to be repeated over and over again to overcome the drumbeat of nonsensical claims that the president is overstepping his authority.

Article II of the Constitution is quite clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The president is, for purposes of constitutional authority, the executive branch of government. Of course he needs a staff. This staff may consist of dozens of subordinates or tens of thousands of them. But they are all subordinates who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Yes, Congress provides funding for these executive positions, but that funding does not mean Congress controls the number or persona. If Congress must rule on reducing the number of executive branch employees or reorganizing executive agencies, that would be a violation of the separation of powers: The president would lose control of his own branch of government. This is constitutionally and practically impermissible.

Keep reading

California Passes Bill To Accept Crypto For State Payments

California has taken a step closer toward embracing crypto after a bill allowing state departments to accept digital currencies sailed through the state’s lower house with a unanimous vote and is now headed for the Senate.

Assembly Bill 1180 (AB 1180), which passed the California State Assembly on June 2 with a 68-0 vote on its third reading, would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to develop rules permitting state fees and transactions under the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL) to be payable in crypto.

The DFPI is California’s regulatory agency tasked with overseeing financial services and protecting consumers while promoting responsible innovation. Individuals and entities conducting crypto business activities in the state must obtain a license from the DFPI.

If AB 1180 clears the Senate and is signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would become effective on July 1, 2026.

According to the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, a pilot program would run until Jan. 1, 2031, when it would become fully operational.

If AB 1180 is passed, California could join the likes of Florida, Colorado and Louisiana that have accepted crypto payments for certain obligations in recent years.

California’s bill would require the DFPI to submit a report by Jan. 1, 2028, detailing all crypto transactions processed, in addition to any technical and regulatory challenges encountered.

Crypto transactions under DFAL are defined as any digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, but is not legal tender.

AB 1180 saw four amendments before being passed by the California Assembly on June 2.

The most notable exclusion concerned a section that sought to define terms related to ride-sharing companies and personal vehicles used for transportation services.

Keep reading

BlueSky Is Just Another Weapon in Big Tech’s War Against Truth

Remember when Jack Dorsey left Twitter, claimed he had “seen the light,” and launched Blue Sky to “decentralize social media”? Yeah, turns out that was just another bait-and-switch by Big Tech’s elite. The same Silicon Valley players who censored the truth about COVID, vaccines, election fraud, and even the gospel, are now peddling “decentralization” like a cheap used car.

But here’s the reality: Blue Sky is a centralized con disguised as a digital rebellion.

On The Andres Segovia Show, @theandressegovia laid it bare: “This is the place I’ve received the most threats on any platform.” That includes X, Gab, even Instagram. But on Blue Sky? Threats. Not criticism. Not trolling. Threats. And the accounts issuing them? Still up. That tells you everything you need to know about how this platform operates.

Now enter @YossiShow—he tested the app, documented 37 screenshots, filed 9 reports on pornographic content, and was met with radio silence. “Ghosted my April 15th and 17th emails,” he said. Zero accountability. Zero action. But the most important quote? “Blue Sky’s a free speech fraud. Vague rules, ignored threats, rampant porn. They dodge accountability… Transparency is key, they’re allergic.”

Let’s cut to the chase. This isn’t about broken code or lazy developers. This is about control. Blue Sky doesn’t want to be a free speech platform. They want to appear to be one—just enough to bait the disillusioned and funnel us back into the surveillance state. They’re pulling from the same playbook we’ve seen over and over again: promise liberty, deliver tyranny.

Keep reading

Connecticut Lawmakers Silence House Republican Reading Graphic Excerpts from School Library Books

Lawmakers in the state of Connecticut silenced Republicans as they read graphic excerpts from books available in school libraries.

The stunning display occurred during a late-night debate on Tuesday when veteran Republican lawmaker, Rep. Anne Dauphinais of Danielson stood up to read graphic sexual references in a school library book. According to the Hartford Courant, Dauphinais expressed concern “that portions of the ‘library bill’ had been inserted into the 693-page state budget that lawmakers were debating at about 11 p.m. Monday.”

Dauphinais read the charged language, claiming that state students could read them in available school libraries. One excerpt came from the book Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, which was later adapted into a film.

“Are you going to eat her pussy?,” Dauphinais read from the book. “Yeah, Earl, I am going to eat her pussy.”

Dauphinais warned parents to remove their children from the debate before she read.

Rep. Juan Candelaria, a New Haven Democrat and deputy House Speaker, immediately banged his gavel to stop the lawmaker from speaking.

“Madam, I would ask that we not try to use that type of language in the chamber and try to keep some decorum,” said Candelaria. “I know you were talking of specific books, but if we could refrain from those type of words because there are also people and children watching this debate.”

“I would ask kindly if we could just use either a different word or something different just out of respect for others that might get offended. Thank you,” he added.

“Mr. Speaker, I stand here to share with the chamber the books that are available in our public school libraries to the very children you’re telling me that this language isn’t appropriate in this chamber,” responded Dauphinais. “This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts.”

Opponents to Dauphinais shot back, saying she misrepresented the material while charging that students are exposed to far worse content on their phones almost daily.

Lawmakers were debating a bill designed “to ensure that all libraries have written policies on how to purchase books and how to handle challenges to the content of the books, officials said.”

Keep reading

‘Trump Flipped On Us’: MAGA Reacts to Potential National Citizen Database

Supporters of President Donald Trump expressed anger and disbelief online following reports that his administration had advanced plans to create a national citizen database with technology firm Palantir.

Newsweek reached out to Palantir for comment.

Why It Matters

The White House has contracted Palantir, a Colorado-based analytics company co-founded by Trump supporter Peter Thiel, to assist in compiling a database of personal information on American citizens, according to unnamed government officials and Palantir employees who spoke with The New York Times. The purported deal follows project talks Palantir had with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Education.

The reaction from Trump’s supporters reflected growing unease within conservative circles, indicating a rare rupture between the president and key segments of his constituency. The controversy underscores nationwide anxieties around privacy, civil liberties, and the growing influence of technology firms over personal information management.

What To Know

The Palantir deal marks a significant development in government data collection, drawing sharp concern from privacy advocates and Trump’s own core base, otherwise known as “MAGA.” Detractors compared the centralized database effort to surveillance initiatives in authoritarian regimes.

Numerous pro-Trump voices expressed dismay and feelings of betrayal across social media platforms like X.

“People are so quick to suggest that I flipped on Trump…No, no, no…I didn’t flip on Trump. TRUMP FLIPPED ON US. I’m just not willing to continue living in a LIE, and I will tell you the unfortunate TRUTH about it,” The Patriot Voice wrote on X to his 158,000 followers.

Keep reading