Blog

US plans to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro, US DOJ official says

The United States plans to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro, a U.S. Department of ​Justice official said late on Thursday.

The timing of the potential indictment, ‌which would need to be approved by a grand jury, was not immediately clear, but the official said it sounds imminent.

The potential indictment of the 94-year-old former ​president of Cuba and brother of Fidel is expected to focus ​on the downing of aircraft, the official said on condition ⁠of anonymity.

CBS previously reported that the case relates to Cuba’s deadly ​1996 shootdown of planes operated by humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue.

Representatives for ​Cuba’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside of normal business hours.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request ​for comment.

Trump’s administration has called Cuba’s current communist-run government corrupt and ​incompetent and is seeking to replace it. The latest move comes as President Donald Trump ‌has ⁠heaped pressure on Cuba, effectively imposing a blockade on the island by threatening sanctions on countries supplying it with fuel, igniting power outages and delivering blows to its economy.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District ​of Florida has ​been overseeing an ⁠effort to examine potential criminal charges against senior Cuban government officials.

Officials from both countries acknowledged earlier this year ​that they were in talks, but the negotiations appeared ​to founder ⁠amid the ongoing U.S. fuel blockade.

However, on Thursday, the Cuban government confirmed it had met with CIA chief John Ratcliffe.

Ratcliffe told intelligence officials in Cuba that ⁠the U.S. ​was prepared to engage on economic security ​issues if Cuba makes “fundamental changes,” a CIA official said.

Keep reading

Trump Describes Executions to Kids, While MAGA Bans Lessons Causing “Discomfort” 

Seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office in early May, Donald Trump delivered a disturbing lecture to a group of children huddled around him — most of them not yet even teenagers. They had been brought to the White House for what was supposed to be a celebratory event marking the reinstatement of the Presidential Fitness Test, dressed in brightly colored T-shirts bearing the government emblem of the rebooted program.

Flanked by a group including cabinet secretaries Linda McMahon, Pete Hegseth, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump turned the White House into his schoolhouse. Casting himself as a master teacher, he launched into an improvised lesson — part contemporary issues, part history, part geography, and all MAGA mythology.

During his lesson, Trump exposed a central contradiction at the heart of his politics. States and school districts across the country have enacted MAGA education policies — such as the Florida Stop WOKE Act — that prohibit teaching content that might cause students “guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress.” But Trump himself showed no such restraint. During what amounted to an advanced course in authoritarian education, he immersed children in a grotesque curriculum of graphic executions, nuclear annihilation, and the threat of entire societies being wiped out — paired with nationalist triumphalism and the scapegoating of transgender people.

The premise of the event itself rested on the fear that the U.S. has become weak and soft, which could only be remedied by making the country aggressively masculine again. Trump framed the return of the Presidential Fitness Test not merely as a health initiative, but as part of a broader struggle for national strength and power. Warning in a statement to the press that declining youth fitness weakens “our economy, military readiness, academic performance, and national morale,” he cast physical toughness as a prerequisite for a nation prepared for war.

This is not education. It is spectacle, coercion, indoctrination, and the normalization of violence.

Keep reading

Ofcom and the Fantasy of Global Speech Control

Ofcom appears to believe that a website is a kind of television channel. This would explain a lot about what happened on Wednesday, when Britain’s speech regulator fined an American mental health and suicide discussion forum £950,000 ($1.3 million) for hosting speech that is legal in America, on servers in America, operated by Americans.

The site had already blocked British visitors from accessing it, voluntarily, as a gesture of goodwill, despite having no legal obligation to do so and despite Ofcom having no jurisdiction to demand it. Ofcom fined it anyway. The fine is unenforceable.

The site owes Ofcom nothing under American law. And even if the site had never blocked a single British visitor, Ofcom’s case would still make no sense, because a British regulator cannot fine an American citizen for legal American speech on an American server any more than the French postal service can fine you for what you write in your own diary.

Ofcom is the Office of Communications, the British government’s speech regulator. Americans don’t really have an equivalent because most Americans would never stand for one. The closest thing is the FCC, except imagine the FCC could also decide what you’re allowed to say on the internet and fine you if it disapproves.

Under the notorious Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, Ofcom gained the power to decide what speech is permissible online and to fine platforms that host speech the UK government doesn’t like.

That includes speech that is perfectly legal everywhere else on earth. It is, when you think about it for more than four seconds, absolutely mad.

Ofcom launched on December 29, 2003, stitched together from five separate regulators: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Office of Telecommunications, the Radio Authority, and the Radiocommunications Agency.

They all dealt with broadcasting, telecoms, or spectrum. They regulated transmitters, phone lines, and radio frequencies, all of which used publicly owned spectrum and publicly funded infrastructure to push content into British living rooms.

The airwaves belonged to the public. The transmitters were built with public money. If you were using national resources to broadcast to a national audience, it made sense that a national regulator got to set some terms. None of these five organizations were designed to have opinions about what a foreigner writes on a computer in Virginia.

The confusion starts with Ofcom not understanding what a website actually is.

A website does not push anything. Content sits on a server. A visitor actively goes to it and requests it. The data crosses borders only because someone on the other end typed in the URL. Website users are called “visitors” and not “viewers” for exactly this reason. They go to the site. The site does not come to them.

This is not a complicated distinction. A reasonably bright nine-year-old could grasp it over breakfast. Ofcom, apparently, cannot.

The regulator is treating a website in Virginia as though it were a transmitter on a hill in Surrey and claiming jurisdiction over the server rather than the person visiting it. It’s like fining an American for not stopping British citizens from mailing letters to them.

Keep reading

Annoying jingle permanently banned from airwaves as California ends ‘strategy of deception’

California is pulling the plug on the wildly recognizable Kars4Kids jingle after a judge ruled the charity’s ads misled donors about who actually benefits from their money.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Gassia Apkarian found that the organization violated California false advertising and unfair competition laws by failing to disclose that donations primarily fund Orthodox Jewish programs tied to Oorah Inc., a New York- and New Jersey-based outreach organization.

The ruling was published May 8 and comes after California resident Bruce Puterbaugh sued the charity in 2021, claiming he donated his car after repeatedly hearing the famous ad and believed the proceeds would help underprivileged children in California.

Instead, Puterbaugh learned the $250 generated from his donated vehicle went to programs connected to Oorah, which focuses on Jewish heritage camps and religious outreach.

According to the ruling, Kars4Kids chief operating officer Esti Landau testified that the charity’s “primary function” is funding Oorah’s programs.

Landau also testified that although about 25% of Kars4Kids’ revenue comes from California, the organization has virtually no meaningful programs benefiting children in the state beyond a backpack drive described in court as a “branding exercise.”

Keep reading

4 alien species have been pulled from crashed UFOs, ex-government researcher claims

The US has recovered four distinct species of extraterrestrial life from crashed UFOs, a former CIA-funded government researcher sensationally claimed this week.

Dr. Hal Puthoff, former Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program advisor and CIA-funded researcher, made the claim alongside “Age of Disclosure” director Dan Farrah on Steve Bartlett’s “The Diary of a CEO” podcast on Thursday.

“People who have been involved in recoveries have said there are at least four types. Four separate types,” the 89-year-old said. “Now I have not had direct access to that but I believe the people who I talked to — four separate types of life.”

The Stanford-trained quantum physicist did not detail the supposed alien species — but his longtime collaborator and former AAWSAP colleague Dr. Eric Davis claimed last year that Grays, Nordics, Insectoids, and Reptilians are the names of the biological lifeforms pulled from the wreckage of downed or crashed UFOs. 

Each alien species has two arms and legs and a humanoid appearance, Davis claimed, citing intelligence reports.

Both the Reptilians and the Nordics are human-sized, roughly 6 feet tall, Davis said at a UAP Disclosure Fund meeting in 2025 which was attended by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.).

Keep reading

Australian Federal Court rules ‘trans women’ are REAL women

Australia’s Federal Court has delivered its long-awaited judgment in the Giggle v Tickle appeal, finding in favour of Roxanne Tickle.

The full court, made up of Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Wendy Abraham, handed down the decision today after a two-day hearing last August.

The case involved Sall Grover, founder of the women-only social networking app Giggle, who had removed Roxanne Tickle, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, from the platform. Grover appealed an earlier 2024 ruling that found the exclusion amounted to indirect discrimination. Tickle cross-appealed, seeking a finding of direct discrimination and higher damages.

The court ruled that Giggle and Grover directly discriminated against Tickle on the ground of gender identity by excluding them based on their gender-related appearance, as shown in a selfie, and then refusing to readmit them. 

The judges agreed with the original decision on the interpretation of special measures under the Sex Discrimination Act, concluding that the app’s women-only policy did not provide a defence in this instance. They increased the damages award to $20,000, taking into account what they described as aggravating conduct by Grover.

Keep reading

BELIEVE HER: Kamala Harris Endorses These Chilling Ideas for Democrats to “Neutralize Red-State Cheating”

Kamala Harris has revealed his week that she is all for a series of radical plans that should terrify every American.

During a Win With Black Women organizing call on Wednesday, Harris tore into the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act and letting Southern states get rid of racial gerrymanders in redistricting.

“What they are doing is, they are backdooring racism behind politics to get to this decision and to justify them, what is happening in particular right now in all the southern states,” Harris whined. “This is obviously a time for us to fight.”

Harris later provided a solution to combat this so-called racism. Her prescription is one so chilling that it would likely bring about the end of the Republic.

Harris begins by endorsing expanding the Supreme Court to ensure a far-left majority controlled by the likes of Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Then she calls for granting statehood to Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. This means four new Democratic senators, making it far more difficult for Republicans ever to win it back.

Finally, Harris strongly insinuates that the Electoral College must be abolished. This provides even more incentive for Democrats to manufacture enough votes to steal even more elections.

Keep reading

Hantavirus Media Hype: The Real Lesson Is Not About Rodents — It Is About Us

Periodically, the public faces a new microbial threat. The pattern is consistent: a tragic death or cluster of illnesses emerges, prompting newsrooms to employ dramatic language such as “deadly virus,” “mysterious outbreak,” and “health officials concerned.” Social media further amplifies public fear. Public health agencies issue cautious statements, which journalists often reframe in alarmist terms. Within days, individuals previously unfamiliar with the terminology may become convinced that a civilization-ending epidemic is imminent. This month, it is hantavirus. Just turn on your TV sets and watch the number of newscasts depicting this “new illness.”

For most Americans, hantavirus is not a new disease. It has existed for decades, particularly in rural areas where rodent exposure is common. Physicians, especially those in pulmonary and critical care medicine, have known about hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) since the 1990s, when a cluster of severe respiratory illnesses in the American Southwest led investigators to identify the Sin Nombre virus carried by deer mice. Since that time, the total number of confirmed cases in the United States has remained extraordinarily small. According to CDC data, the cumulative number of cases over more than three decades nationwide barely exceeds 1,000.¹ This fact alone should prompt a reassessment of the emotional tone characterizing the current media coverage.

A disease responsible for approximately one thousand confirmed cases over three decades in a population exceeding 330 million does not constitute an existential societal threat. It is neither comparable to Covid-19 nor does it justify widespread public alarm. However, contemporary media systems are structurally ill-equipped to present rare infectious diseases in proportionate terms. Fear increases engagement, which in turn drives revenue, and dramatic narratives consistently overshadow measured epidemiological analysis.

As a clinician, I do not mean to suggest that hantavirus should be ignored. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome can indeed be severe. Mortality rates in hospitalized patients may approach 30–40% in some series, particularly when diagnosis is delayed.² Patients may present with fever, myalgias, cough, and rapidly progressive respiratory failure. Intensive care physicians who have treated true HPS cases understand how devastating the illness can become. But severity is not the same thing as prevalence. A disease can be both dangerous and exceedingly uncommon.

Contemporary public discourse frequently fails to differentiate between these two concepts. This distinction matters because exaggerated risk perception carries consequences of its own. Constant fear messaging changes human behavior, distorts policy priorities, and damages public trust. After Covid-19, one might assume society would have learned the importance of measured communication. Instead, many institutions appear trapped in a perpetual cycle of alarmism. Every unusual pathogen is immediately framed through the lens of catastrophe. Every isolated event becomes a potential “emerging crisis.” The result is a population psychologically conditioned to interpret uncertainty as imminent disaster.

The irony is that the actual preventive measures for hantavirus are remarkably mundane and have been known for decades. Avoid rodent infestations. Use gloves and a mask when cleaning heavily contaminated enclosed spaces, such as sheds or cabins. Ventilate areas before sweeping droppings. Seal food containers. Maintain sanitation. These are practical environmental hygiene recommendations, not civilization-altering mandates. There is no evidence-based justification for widespread public panic.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Commits to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ in UK Watchdog Agreement

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has reached an agreement with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to significantly accelerate the censorship of what England considers “hate speech” and antisemitic content from the platform.

The Telegraph reports that Elon Musk’s X has entered into a formal arrangement with Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, pledging to take swifter action against illegal “hate speech” including racism and antisemitism. The agreement represents a notable shift for the platform, which has faced sustained criticism over its content moderation policies since Musk’s acquisition in 2022.

Under the terms of the commitment announced today, X will now aim to review posts containing hate speech and potential terrorist content within 24 hours of identification. The company has established a minimum performance target of checking and removing at least 85 percent of hateful and antisemitic posts within a 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, X has pledged to take more aggressive action in blocking accounts operated by organizations proscribed under British law.

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s online safety director, characterized the agreement as progress while acknowledging significant work remains. “We have evidence that terrorist content and illegal hate speech is persisting on some of the largest social media sites,” Griffiths said. “We are challenging them to tackle the problem and expect them to take firm action.”

Griffiths emphasized the particular urgency of the agreement in light of recent hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish community in Britain.

The agreement comes after a period of tension between X and the regulatory authority. Musk’s company previously clashed with Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, Britain’s primary legislation governing technology companies’ responsibilities. Last summer, X accused the regulator of employing a “heavy-handed approach” and claimed Ofcom was “seriously infringing” on free speech protections.

Ofcom is also conducting a separate investigation into X concerning a wave of non-consensual deepfake images of women and children that spread across the platform in January.

Keep reading

CIA Whistleblower Fears Retaliation, as Rand Paul Promises More COVID Cover-Up News Next Week

A CIA whistleblower who testified under subpoena that Dr. Anthony Fauci led a multi-agency cover-up of evidence that COVID-19 leaked from a lab is afraid the agency will retaliate against him, his attorney told The Defender today.

James E. Erdman III, a CIA senior operations officer, testified Wednesday that “Dr. Fauci’s role in the cover-up was intentional” and resulted in the Biden administration releasing an August 2021 report that was inconclusive about the virus’s origins — even though intelligence agencies by then had evidence of a lab leak.

Erdman’s attorney, Carol Thompson, told The Defender that Erdman is “concerned that the CIA will use bureaucratic processes and alleged secrecy requirements to undermine his testimony and obfuscate the truth.”

Thompson’s comments echo those she made to reporters after Wednesday’s hearing, in the presence of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who convened the hearing as part of his ongoing investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

Paul told reporters his team is continuing its review of evidence — and that more conflict-of-interest revelations are coming “next week.”

He also addressed the May 11 deadline to indict Fauci for perjury for allegedly lying to Congress, saying that Fauci may still face indictment.

In May 2021, Fauci told Congress the National Institutes of Health and the agency he led, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), never funded gain-of-function research. The five-year statute of limitations for indicting Fauci for his May 2021 testimony expired on Monday.

However, Fauci provided similar testimony in July 2021 — the deadline for indicting him for lies told during that testimony is July 2026.

“There are a lot of questions and I’ve sent several criminal referrals … on Anthony Fauci, and I hope they will be pursued,” Paul said.

Keep reading