Blog

Officials urge WHO to declare climate change a global health emergency

Climate change should now be treated as a global health emergency comparable to Ebola and mpox, European ministers and health officials have told the WHO. 

The Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health, an independent group of experts convened by former Icelandic Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir and WHO Europe chief Hans Kluge, urged governments to speed the shift to clean renewables to help avert millions of deaths in a new report.

The group said the WHO should declare the climate crisis a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC), a high-level alert most recently activated for the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as for mpox.

The experts said the move was critical since even temperate European countries are warming rapidly, driven largely by fossil fuel combustion. According to the report, fossil fuel subsidies in 12 European countries amounted to more than 10% of their public health budgets.

Kluge, who supported the call, said that “climate change is a security threat, a health emergency and an economic time bomb, all rolled into one.” 

He previously told Euractiv that climate change will have to become a much bigger priority for the European region, explaining that “for the first time in history, Iceland has mosquitoes.”

The experts pointed to several health concerns linked to climate change in the report: extreme heat, vector-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya, air pollution-related deaths, and water contamination from flooding. 

The experts’ prognosis was not entirely grim, however, adding that there’s still a window of time to act.

For healthcare systems, they suggested setting up greener procurement standards to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, creating more resilient systems to shocks like floods, as well as training staff around climate awareness.  

EU governments, on top of phasing out fossil fuel use, should invest in public transit, create more low-emission zones, and switch away from resource-heavy red meat consumption, they added. 

The bloc’s recent progress has fallen short of both UN climate targets and its own ambitions. Most countries are still far from reaching tougher pollution targets by 2030 under the bloc’s revised air quality rules.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates that air pollution is behind around 350,000 deaths in Europe every year.

EU officials are currently in Geneva for the WHO’s annual assembly, where the commission launched its report. 

Keep reading

Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents: Birthright Citizenship Claim Is Based on Feudalism

Justice Clarence Thomas says the Supreme Court’s 5-4 court decision today establishing birthright citizenship as a constitutional right is a modern political project built on a feudal principle rejected by the American Revolution that devalues U.S. citizenship.

Thomas wrote:

The Court says that the Citizenship Clause incorporated the English feudal principle that subjects owed lifetime servitude to the King who owned the soil on which they were born, but Americans — unsurprisingly — rejected this feudal principle.

…

Today’s opinion devalues [U.S.] citizenship. I respectfully dissent.

His dissent is long:

The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress [after the civil war] did not support. [Emphasis added.]

Thomas’s dissent, which was co-signed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explained his view:

The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States. Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here. When a child was “born” in the United States to parents “domiciled” abroad, he was “not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth”…  Scholars agreed: A child “born within the territory of the United States, of alien parents” was not a citizen unless his parents were “permanently domiciled within the United States”… This Court agreed: The Citizenship Clause “exclude[d] from its operation children of… citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”… And, Congress agreed: The Citizenship Clause did not extend to a child born here but “subject to any foreign power”… As Justice Harlan would write in his [Supreme Court] dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson… the Citizenship Clause “gave citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States and residing here”…

The [Supreme] Court offers a different account. American citizenship, the Court says, was based on a medieval English “feudal” principle, according to which each person “owed personal service to the lord of the soil” as his “master” — a perpetual servitude that was “born with the child and only ended in the grave”… Americans, the Court says, adopted this feudal principle as a rule of American citizenship “with little fanfare”… Then, according to the Court, the Reconstruction Congress codified that feudal principle with the words “not subject to any foreign power” in the Civil Rights Act and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof ” in the Citizenship Clause. Then, the Court says, the Clause’s meaning was definitively settled by dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark…

With due respect, the Court’s account is not historically accurate. The Court says that the Citizenship Clause incorporated the English feudal principle that subjects owed lifetime servitude to the King who owned the soil on which they were born, but Americans — unsurprisingly — rejected this feudal principle. The Court’s theory of American citizenship is based on the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an inheritance dispute called Lynch v. Clarke, … But, the assistant vice chancellor’s reasoning, whatever it was worth, was not even followed in New York by the time of the Citizenship Clause. Finally, the Court reasons that dicta in Wong Kim Ark settled the meaning of the Clause. But, Wong Kim Ark itself emphasized that its holding was limited to persons domiciled in the United States. And, scholars and government officials continued to agree after Wong Kim Ark that the Citizenship Clause did not extend to the children of foreign temporary visitors. The rule remained what it always was: A child born on American soil of “a stranger or traveler passing through the country, or temporarily residing here,” was “not a citizen.”

President Barack Obama’s nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, responded with a sneer that Thomas is a racist who supports the court’s 1857 Dredd Scott decision endorsing slavery which helped trigger the Civil War:

Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet. Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship. It is that odious conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects, as the Court explains.

Thomas ended his dissent with a reference to the court’s 1896 Plessy v Ferguson decision that overturned racial segregation and the obsolete, pre-Civil War Dredd Scott case:

I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause “added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.” Plessy, 163 U. S., at 555 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent.

The court’s decision leaves American citizens with no avenue to guard their citizenship except a formal constitutional amendment enacted via a two-thirds majority of the federal Congress or of the states.

Keep reading

Despite Media Claims, USAID Cuts DID NOT Kill 14 Million People

Critics of the U.S., along with mainstream media and Democratic lawmakers, have claimed that Elon Musk’s cuts to USAID have killed 14 million people. This claim fails on multiple levels. Musk did not cut USAID. As head of DOGE, he held no formal legal authority to cancel contracts or eliminate programs, and the formal cancellations were executed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The death toll figures circulating in the press are not confirmed counts but forward projections spanning up to five years, derived from economic models that assume no alternative funding was found, no internal reallocation of funds occurred, and no recipient government, third-country government, or global aid organization stepped in to fill gaps, assumptions the evidence does not support. An examination of the countries most dependent on USAID funding finds no verified excess mortality data for 2025 or 2026 attributable to the cuts; what exists are modeled estimates, not death registries.

The White House stated in court that Musk was a senior presidential adviser with no formal decision-making authority. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that DOGE played a role in the dismantling of USAID. However, the court found that the cuts were approved by government officials. It also ruled that Musk’s social media statement claiming he had “fed USAID into the wood chipper” did not legally constitute evidence that he made those decisions.

Keep reading

Rosie O’Donnell Slammed for Posing in Front of Private Jet After Blasting Wealthy People as ‘Embarrassing’

Millionaire left-wing comedian Rosie O’Donnell is being slammed on social media for posing with fellow comedian Kathy Griffin in front of a private jet after recently attacking wealthy people as “embarrassing” and asking, “How much [money] can you have?”

“The resistance has landed,” Griffin wrote in a Friday Instagram caption, sharing a photo of herself with O’Donnell in front of a jet. “Are you guys gonna watch the week that @Rosie guest hosts for @jimmykimmellive??? It will be a must watch week.”

Amusingly, O’Donnell is apparently back in the U.S. — again — after fleeing the country for Ireland early last year and previously vowing not to return while President Donald Trump is in office.

Viewers quickly took to social media to share their reactions to O’Donnell standing before the private jet.

“Whatever democrats accuse you of doing, THEY ARE DOING,” one X user proclaimed.

“Rules for thee not for me!” another wrote.

“They are both embarrassing enough no matter what they’re standing in front of!” a third exclaimed.

“Envy is a terrible thing, usually displayed extensively by champagne socialists,” another X user remarked.

“These celebrities are hypocrites… and the general public doesn’t care what they have to say anyways,” another commented.

Keep reading

San Francisco Archdiocese Agrees To $395 Million Abuse Settlement

The Archdiocese of San Francisco has agreed to pay $395 million to settle more than 500 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse by church officials, in what the plaintiffs’ lawyers described as the largest per-survivor settlement.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys said on June 29 that San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone will have to write an apology letter to each survivor as part of the settlement.

The settlement also requires the archdiocese to implement a series of child protection and transparency reforms.

The settlement comes three years after the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy and will cover approximately 530 survivors of child sexual abuse.

It is the latest agreement over clergy sexual abuse claims. In 2024, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to a record $880 million settlement.

This settlement follows years of back-and-forth mediation between the Archdiocese and the Survivors’ Creditors Committee.

The law firm representing the survivors said the $395 million “stands as the largest per survivor settlement in any clerical bankruptcy.”

“As a part of the settlement, the Archdiocese is turning over (assigning) its rights under the insurance policies for the survivors to recover additional damages against all the insurance companies who refused to abide by their contractual responsibilities to the Archdiocese and the survivors,” it said.

“I’ve been working with survivors for decades, and I’ve never heard of anything quite as significant, as rigorous, as robust as what is being required of the Archdiocese of San Francisco,” said Jeff Anderson, an attorney representing dozens of child sexual abuse victims.

The proposed 14-point settlement plan calls for appointing an independent child protection consultant with full access to archdiocesan records, publishing findings and a more complete list of credibly accused offenders, creating a survivor-sensitive public archive, and strengthening protections for whistleblowers and reporters.

It also calls for banning mandatory nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in abuse settlements and prohibiting private digital communications between adults and children.

Margie O’Driscoll sued the archdiocese, alleging she was sexually abused almost 50 years ago by a priest while she was a student at Marin Catholic High School in Kentfield, a community north of the Golden Gate Bridge.

“I, like every survivor, have carried this pain and shame along like a ball and chain for a very, very long time,” O’Driscoll said during a news conference.

“Ashamed and confused about what happened, scorned by the archdiocese, and sometimes not even believed by family and friends, and I think today shame is gonna change sides.”

“We believe this proposal provides a path toward fair compensation for survivors who have borne the weight of this abuse for a lifetime,” Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone, archbishop of San Francisco, said in a June 29 statement.

The Archdiocese of San Francisco, led by Cordileone, serves more than 400,000 Catholics in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties.

“The entire Catholic family is called to unite and share in the work of making amends through this proposed settlement. We have a moral obligation to bring some level of healing and reconciliation to those who deserve our unwavering respect, attention, and prayers,” he said.

“With stringent preventative measures and trainings now in place for decades, the hope is that this proposal will allow us collectively to move forward by continuing the important ministries to the faithful and community members that rely on our services and charity.

“While the vast majority of sexual abuse allegations associated with this bankruptcy were from many decades ago, we accept full responsibility for what happened, and I sincerely apologize to all those who have been harmed.”

Keep reading

NPR’s Nina Totenberg Reveals Why She Posted a Story Claiming Alito Was Retiring – Then Quickly Retracted

Does NPR’s Nina Totenberg have advanced knowledge that Justice Samuel Alito is about to retire?

NPR reporter Nina Totenberg on Tuesday published an article claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring.

Totenberg claimed that the Supreme Court made the announcement that Alito was retiring.

Nina Totenberg wrote: “Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court’s opinion reversing Roe v. Wade is retiring, the court announced on Tuesday.”

However, 10 minutes later, the NPR article was scrubbed and left with an editor’s note.

The original article is archived here.

“This story has been taken down. It was published in error,” the note read.

NPR staff published a separate article claiming the Alito article was “erroneously published.”

NPR said that Totenberg already had a draft article on Alito’s retirement ready in advance of the announcement.

The outlet claimed that Totenberg assumed that Alito was retiring after she heard a bystander say that Chief Justice Roberts made a retirement announcement.

“Totenberg was reporting on the final day of the Supreme Court session on Tuesday. As she was leaving the court, Chief Justice John Roberts was announcing upcoming retirements. Totenberg wondered why everyone else wasn’t leaving and asked someone outside the court. According to her interview that same day on All Things Considered, Totenberg asked a bystander what was going on, and the person replied “retirement announcements.” But Totenberg heard the reply in the singular, “announcement, ” and assumed it was the notice that Alito was retiring,’ NPR reported.

Nina Totenberg revealed on “All Things Considered” that she made a “rookie mistake.”

“I scared everybody half to death for about five minutes,” Totenberg said on the show. “It’s entirely on me. It’s not anybody else’s fault.”

Totenberg read the text of her apology to Alito on Tuesday’s show:

“Dear Justice Alito, there are no words to adequately apologize for today’s error in reporting your retirement. It was entirely my fault. I rushed out of the courtroom after the opinion announcements, and when I realized that the usual rush of folks after a few minutes had not happened, I asked somebody was going on inside, to which the answer was, ‘retirement announcements.’ I didn’t hear the ‘s’ on ‘announcements,’ and I assumed something no reporter should ever do, that you were retiring. It was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism. I could go on, but I don’t know what else to say, except that I am so so sorry.”

NPR claimed that Nina Totenberg’s status as one of the most experienced reporters covering the Supreme Court contributed to the error.

“Totenberg is one of the most experienced reporters covering the Supreme Court. She’s done so for NPR since 1975. Her status contributed to the error,” NPR said.

“She’s the preeminent Supreme Court reporter in the courtroom,” NPR Executive Editor Krishnadev Calamur said. “So I’m assuming that’s what she heard. … She’s in the room. It’s like when we report opinions. I’m not waiting to see what the Times is reporting. It’s when Nina says, here’s what happened, and we do it. That’s the trust you build up.”

Keep reading

It’s Time To Stop Pretending That Migrants Are Entitled To Equal Citizenship

Yet another civil conflict is brewing this week as the Supreme Court tackles a number of foreign citizenship debates, including Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and Birthright Citizenship. The court has ruled that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants residing in the US under TPS are no longer safe from mass deportations (a win). But, they have also ruled in favor of migrant anchor babies (a big loss).

Both issues deal with changing American perceptions on what is “constitutional” when it comes to foreign access to citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decisions aside, I find it mind boggling that this debate has been ongoing for so many decades. Frankly, foreigners should not have any citizenship rights under the constitution until they have demonstrated assimilation. Until that time, there should be a separate set of rules handling newcomers (and invaders).

When it comes to TPS and the Haitians, the leftists are raging. Despite this status supposedly being “temporary” (the Obama Administration originally claimed these people would only be in the US for 18 months), many of these foreign transplants have been enjoying the benefits of unearned American citizenship for 16 years or more.  Yet, when Haitians protest the TPS decision, what flag do you see them flying?  That’s right – They fly the Haitian flag, not the American flag.  This tells us everything we need to know.

Keep reading

Iraqi Police Discover $14 Million Stashed in Oil Minister’s Walls

Iraqi investigators carried out a major anti-corruption operation on Sunday, raiding several homes in exclusive Baghdad neighborhoods and arresting dozens of prominent public figures.

One of the most remarkable arrests was Deputy Minister of Oil for Distribution Affairs Ali Maarij al-Bahadly, whose home proved to have $14 million in cash stuffed into its walls.

The Iraqi judiciary released footage of investigators smashing through the wall of al-Bahadly’s pool house and discovering suitcases filled with American dollars and Iraqi dinars, plus a few luxury goods, such as a Rolex wristwatch.

The presiding judge of the Iraqi Central Criminal Court for Corruption, which has taken Bahadly into custody, said the suitcases full of cash were discovered during the “initial investigation” of the deputy oil minister. One can only imagine what the full investigation will look like.

Bahadly was directly in charge of selling and distributing refined fuel products across the entire country, which put him in close contact with traders, distributors, and numerous local officials. His position was considered exceptionally sensitive for this reason, although surprisingly enough, he was not caught with his hand in the biggest cookie jar.

That distinction belongs to another deputy oil minister, Adnan al-Jumaili, who had almost $86 million in cash when he was arrested in late May. The judiciary said that 70 properties, 21 vehicles, and 6.6 pounds of gold jewelry have been seized so far, in addition to the mountain of cash.

The anti-corruption crackdown was ordered by Iraq’s new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, soon after he was sworn into office by parliament in May. The Iraqi public was furious about corruption, mismanagement, and the reluctance of previous governments to take action against politically-connected officials.

The U.S. government also pressured the new prime minister to take action, and was specifically interested in Bahadly, who was targeted for sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in early May for “abusing his position to facilitate the diversion of oil to be sold for the benefit of the Iranian regime and its proxy militias in Iraq.”

“Like a rogue gang, the Iranian regime is pillaging resources that rightfully belong to the Iraqi people. Treasury will not stand idly by as Iran’s military exploits Iraqi oil to fund terrorism against the United States and our partners,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said when announcing the sanctions in May.

Other officials caught up in the anti-corruption dragnet include Raed al-Jubouri, current health director and former governor of the province where Adnan al-Jumaili lives, and Alaa Samir al-Jubouri, a top official with the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity.

In addition to the arrests, Prime Minister al-Zaidi canceled a massive $764 million Baghdad airport project on June 14 over corruption concerns.

Some observers worried that al-Zaidi’s long-overdue anti-corruption drive would stall out, despite some big early headlines, for the same reason that previous efforts to curb rampant corruption have failed: Iraq’s governing coalition is fragile, and could completely disintegrate if some factions think they are being treated unfairly. Many of the factions in that coalition are heavily armed.

“I would expect the campaign to stop once pursuing it further begins to carry significant political, security, or systemic costs. For now, however, there are indications that additional arrests may still be forthcoming,” Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies researcher Harith Hasan told The National on Tuesday.

“Corruption in Iraq is politically protected. Thus, it becomes a very complicated task to fight it. It is linked directly to the nature and the composition of the political system,” media professor Ghalib Aldaamy told Al Jazeera News.

“Can you imagine that some of those who commit such crimes believe they are not doing something wrong because they hold a religious doctrine that states that public funds belong to no one?” Aldaamy asked.

Former Iraqi Federal Integrity Commission chief Mousa Faraj told Al Jazeera he was impressed by the prime minister’s effort so far, but added that $14 million stuffed in a minister’s walls is a fraction of the stolen money that investigators might find if they look in the right places.

“My advice to the prime minister is to start with serious and major old files. At the top of them are the Central Bank currency auctions in previous years, where corruption reached tens of billions of dollars,” Faraj said.

Keep reading

Democrat Politicians Are Being Attacked By The Woke Mob They Helped Create

If modern history has taught us anything, it’s that one should never align one’s self with zealots.  They might be useful for creating momentum and pushing your agenda forward at the time, but eventually they will deem you inadequate to their standards, because frankly, no one is actually capable of meeting their standards.   

The political left’s shift into radical communism (and radical Islam) is accelerating rapidly, with a number of incumbent and “centrist” Democrat politicians being unseated by “Democratic Socialists” in the primaries in states like New York.  Meanwhile, the far-left is taking over management in deep blue cities across the US.   

Rumors suggest that the party is heavily divided and they are unsuccessfully trying to hide it.  Zohran Mamdani’s ascension to mayor of NYC was the canary in the coal mine and a sign of things to come.  There is a rising tide of militant woke fanatics using the Democrat Party as a vehicle to gain access to positions of political power, and the Dems happily invited them in. 

And, with any socialist revolution, those who are viewed as moderates or “less revolutionary” are always targeted for expulsion (or extinction) once the zealots gain enough influence. 

Case-in-point, California State Senator Scott Wiener, perhaps one of the most radical (and some would argue one of the most detestable) Democrat politicians in office today, is not safe from the woke mob.  Wiener has operated as an agent for LGBT activism and it’s the central pillar of his career.  Yet, during a trans pride march in San Francisco last week he was accosted by a gaggle of crazies demanding he leave because of his past support for Israel.  

Keep reading

Europe’s Highest Court Rules Against Military Member in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case

A military officer failed to convince Europe’s highest court that Italy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for military members discriminated against military members because the mandate didn’t also apply to civilian employees.

The officer, identified by the initials B.G., served in Italy’s Army Engineer Corps. He was suspended without pay in January 2022 for refusing to comply with the mandate.

Earlier this month, the European Court of Justice ruled that opposition to vaccine mandates based on policy disagreement, rather than sincerely held belief, is not protected under European Union (EU) anti-discrimination law.

B.G. challenged his suspension, arguing that regular COVID-19 tests were an acceptable alternative to compulsory vaccination and that workers in other sectors were given this choice.

Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled against him, finding that the military vaccine mandate was an appropriate measure for military personnel.

On appeal, Italy’s Council of State, the country’s highest administrative appeals court, asked the European Court of Justice to clarify several legal questions.

The European Court of Justice found that B.G. did not demonstrate a sincerely held religious, spiritual or philosophical belief protected under EU law.

“Judges found BG was not expressing a protected religious, philosophical or spiritual belief but challenging Italy’s public health policy,” Courthouse News reported. His objections “focused on vaccine effectiveness, possible side effects, testing as an alternative and the way the mandate was implemented.”

In its ruling, the European Court of Justice wrote that B.G. “does not seek to oppose the compulsory vaccination at issue in the main proceedings on the basis of his own beliefs, but to challenge, as such, the choices made by the Italian authorities in the field of public health.”

Those objections “constitute opinions” on public health, and as such, are not protected. Aside from sincerely held beliefs, EU law also protects against discrimination based on age, disability or sexual orientation.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst called the ruling “unfortunate and disappointing,” as the legal protection of personal beliefs in the EU “appears to be an empty shell.”

Keep reading