Moaist Propaganda Shill and Tech Millionaire Neville Roy Singham Reportedly Funded Marxist Group that Organized Anti-US Protests After Tyrant Maduro Was Arrested on Saturday

In August 2023, The New York Times published a rare informative and honest piece of journalism. The New York Times exposed the so-called anti-war group Code Pink as a Communist China shill or front group.

Kristinn Taylor reported at the time.

Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, 68, has deep roots in the Democratic Party, having served as the campaign manager for the 1992 presidential campaign of former California Governor Jerry Brown. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Evans served as a host for Obama fundraisers in Hollywood with her then husband Max Palevsky (who passed away in 2010 at age 85) and as a campaign bundler.

Evans married Singham, 69, in 2017.

Trump was the only U.S. president to not start any new wars in his first term, yet the so-called antiwar group Code Pink stood against him in his first term – and now in his second term.

It is clear Code Pink is not an “anti-war” group. Instead, Code Pink is a shill for the communists.

Keep reading

Climate extremists claim responsibility for blackout affecting 50,000 households

A group of self-described climate activists has claimed responsibility for a massive power outage that hit five districts in southwestern Berlin, saying the action targeted the fossil fuel industry and “the rich.”

Up to 50,000 households and 2,200 commercial entities were affected by the blackout in the early hours of Saturday, a spokesman for the local electricity provider, Stromnetz Berlin, told the Berliner Zeitung. “Full restoration of power supply” is expected no sooner than January 8, according to the company. The residents of the affected areas would have to remain without power in “freezing temperatures” ranging from -7C to -1C, the paper reported.

Police are treating the incident as a targeted arson attack, according to local media. The blackout was caused by a blaze that hit a power bridge over the Teltow Canal, which goes through the southern part of the city. Several nursing homes and elderly care centers had to be evacuated because of the incident, according to a local fire department. No casualties have been reported in connection to the incident.

Keep reading

Activists Linked to George Soros Are Training Jurors So They Can Help ‘Marginalized’ Defendants

A judicial activist group linked to George Soros’ activist groups is coming under scrutiny for what they call “juror teach-in” sessions to protect “those with marginalized identities.”

Free DC, a Washington-based group which describes itself as a “fiscally sponsored special project” of a progressive nonprofit called Community Change and Community Change Action, will be hosting a Jan. 12 training session which, from its description, sounds suspiciously close to a primer on jury nullification.

The session is being co-hosted with another progressive group, Harriet’s Wildest Dreams.

“We’ll discuss what it really means to serve on a jury and how we can use that role to protect our people especially those with marginalized identities who are disproportionately targeted by the criminal legal system,” the event description reads.

“Jury duty is not just a civic responsibility; it’s a powerful tool for ensuring fairness and justice. As community members, our participation in juries is vital to safeguarding the rights of those who are most vulnerable to systemic biases.

“By serving on a jury, we can influence outcomes and help create a more equitable legal process.”

As of Thursday, the session is “open to everyone,” although that may change given the attention the event has suddenly received.

As the New York Post reported, Free DC’s funding can be traced back to several large progressive philanthropies, including Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

The OSF’s $20 million donation to Free DC initially came under scrutiny in August when the group took an active role in fighting President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital after several high-profile violent crimes.

“‘Do not obey in advance’ and ‘Take up space’ are among Free DC’s ‘guiding principles,’ and the group urges supporters to ‘go outside at 8:00 PM and bang pots and pans, sing, chant, or make noise for five minutes’ every night ‘of this occupation,’” the Post reported at the time.

“Free DC has scheduled multiple events since Monday’s anti-Trump protest, including a ‘Cop Watch Training,’ suggesting further protests are planned amid Trump’s effort to make DC the ‘safest, cleanest and most beautiful cities anywhere in the world’ – by ramping up law enforcement efforts and removing homeless encampments from public places.”

After the shooting of two National Guard troops in the capital in November, allegedly by an Afghani migrant, the group again came under scrutiny for a problematic social media post.

Keep reading

American Legal Sovereignty Threatened By Greenpeace’s Retaliatory EU Lawsuit

The strength of the American civil legal system rests on a simple principle: those who break the law on U.S. soil answer to U.S. plaintiffs in U.S. courts. Our constitutional order depends on juries empowered to weigh evidence, judges and plaintiffs entrusted to enforce verdicts, and a system insulated from foreign interference. However, that foundation is now being tested by an activist organization determined to escape domestic accountability for domestic acts, by turning abroad and using a foreign country’s laws and courts to take another bite at the legal apple, so to speak.

In March 2025, a North Dakota jury delivered a decisive $670 million verdict against Greenpeace and its affiliates, finding them liable for extreme torts against Energy Transfer LP in the form of defamation, trespass, and conspiracy. The jurors rejected the claim that the Greenpeace activity—supporting violent demonstrations that disrupted construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017—was protected speech, finding instead that Greenpeace orchestrated a campaign of unlawful disruption and reputational harm against Energy Transfer.

While the award has since been reduced to $345 million, the fact remains: the jury verdict was well founded.

During the trial, Energy Transfer’s lawyers presented compelling evidence showing Greenpeace’s role in orchestrating the protests. The group spent $55,000 training activists in direct action and violent protest tactics, supplied them with power tools, tents, propane, cold-weather gear, and lockboxes to chain themselves to heavy equipment, and encouraged confrontations with law enforcement. Meanwhile, its former executive director was found to have used an official Greenpeace email account to raise another $90,000 to fuel the effort.

On top of that, the jury found that Greenpeace knowingly defamed Energy Transfer by falsely accusing the company of knowingly desecrating Native American burial grounds during pipeline construction. In reality, Energy Transfer took extensive precautions to protect cultural and historical sites. Such fabricated and highly incendiary claims were found to have inflicted serious harm on Energy Transfer’s public reputation and its standing with financial institutions.

But rather than accept the ruling of the court, Greenpeace is attempting an end-run around it. Just weeks before the trial concluded, Greenpeace and Greenpeace International filed a retaliatory lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking the European Union’s new anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) directive. Importantly, the EU directive allows EU-based entities, such as Greenpeace International, to pursue damages against non-EU actors for cases originally brought outside the EU—expanding its reach far beyond Europe’s borders.

The Dutch lawsuit marks the first test of the new EU directive, and it appears that Greenpeace’s goal is to reframe its adjudicated misconduct as “free speech,” sprinkle in its own claims, which could and should have been raised and litigated in the North Dakota forum, and ask a foreign tribunal to essentially re-litigate, where a North Dakota court had already ruled following a full jury trial. Such tactics are abusive, costly, extra-jurisdictional, and very concerning for any company dealing with EU-based entities as no U.S. company could anticipate being hauled into an EU Court by or through its activities in the United States.

Fortunately, at least for now, Recital 29 of the directive only applies to untruthful allegations, meaning that if the claims in the original suit are proven true, anti-SLAPP protections do not apply. On that basis alone, the Dutch court should dismiss the case.

Keep reading

U.K. opposition leaders demand human rights activist be stripped of citizenship for past tweets

Political opposition leaders in the United Kingdom have called for a human rights activist to be stripped of his citizenship over past social media posts allegedly containing violent and antisemitic language within days of the dual national returning to Britain after years in Egyptian prisons.

The leaders of the Conservative and Reform parties also demanded the deportation of Alaa Abd el-Fattah following the discovery of tweets from more than a decade ago in which he allegedly endorsed killing “Zionists’’ and police.

“The comments he made on social media about violence against Jews, white people and the police, amongst others, are disgusting and abhorrent,” Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wrote Monday in the Daily Mail newspaper.

Abd el-Fattah on Monday apologized for the tweets while saying some had been taken out of context and misrepresented.

The activist has spent years in Egyptian prisons, most recently for allegedly spreading fake news about the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He returned to the U.K. on Friday after Egyptian authorities lifted a travel ban that had forced him to remain in the country since he was released in September.

But he immediately became embroiled in controversy after Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was “delighted” that Abd el-Fattah was back in the UK and had been reunited with his family.

That triggered the republication of messages on the social media platform Twitter, now X, that were described as antisemitic, homophobic and anti-British.

Abd el-Fattah expressed shock at the turn of events in a statement released Monday.

“I am shaken that, just as I am being reunited with my family for the first time in 12 years, several historic tweets of mine have been republished and used to question and attack my integrity and values, escalating to calls for the revocation of my citizenship,’’ he said.

The remarks were mostly expressions of a young man’s anger and frustrations in a time of regional crises such as the wars in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza and the rise of police brutality against young people in Egypt, Abd el-Fattah said.

“Looking at the tweets now – the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning – I do understand how shocking and hurtful they are, and for that I unequivocally apologise,’’ he said in the statement.

But that has not staunched the flow of anger from politicians.

Keep reading

The Day PETA Looked Right, and Heads Exploded

Something happens every once in a while that makes you stop mid-sip and stare at the wall. Not because you’re stifling a burp; it’s not anything dramatic or historical. You need that second for your brain to catch up.

For me, that moment arrived when PETA praised work tied to RFK Jr. that aimed to end certain forms of monkey testing and limit the importation of primates for laboratory use.

Yes, that PETA.

The same group better known for shouting at people passing by, while wearing costumes, and drifting so far into odd territory that parody stopped trying to keep pace.

For a brief moment, reality tilted.

A Group Known for Noise

For years, PETA made noise and loud protests, sharing extreme claims, statements that felt designed to shock rather than persuade. Somewhere along the way, insects entered the conversation, and public patience quietly showed itself.

The organization that the legendary El Rushbo called “four people and a fax machine” — people of a certain age, do an internet search for “fax machine” — trained people to expect outrage on demand, where agreement never felt possible. People assumed punchlines when PETA supported something.

Which made praise tied to a Trump administration effort feel like discovering your smoke detector offers calm life advice — for free!

What Actually Drew Praise

What Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy pushed was an initiative to reduce reliance on primate testing by limiting imports and encouraging agencies to adopt alternative research methods.

Science, computer modeling, simulation, and non-animal testing have moved forward, already handling many tasks once assigned to live subjects.

Modern approaches promise less-to-no suffering, better data, and lower costs, which improve research and ethics and make red tape-loving bureaucrats lose ground. That proved to be a combination strong enough to break through any political reflex.

When Politics Trips Over Results

In this case, the humor sits in the source, not the policy, where PETA cheering a Trump-era move feels like cats endorsing vacuum cleaners, and somewhere in the distance, a megaphone hits the floor.

Once the dust settled, nothing collapsed, nobody combusted, and the planet kept spinning. Results mattered more than labels.

This moment feels so rare because modern politics trains people to react first and think later, where support follows teams, and opposition becomes a habit.

It’s a case where breaking that pattern seems awfully suspicious.

Regardless, outcomes don’t care who signs the paperwork.

Why Heads Really Exploded

PETA isn’t changing; there’s no grand shift taking place. The group simply approved something that aligned with its stated goals, even with an inconvenient source.

That moment alone shocked people; agreement, however brief, cut against years of predictable behavior.

Under all the settled dust, an uncomfortable truth was revealed: Good ideas survive bad company. Ethical progress doesn’t need perfect messengers. Sometimes it sneaks through cracks nobody expects.

That was a realization that unsettled people more than the policy itself.

Keep reading

Founder of anti-capitalist group Take Back Power – who dumped manure at The Ritz and threw custard over the Crown jewels – is privately educated son of megayacht insurance executive

The ringleader of a leading anti-capitalist protest group is the son of a top executive at a superyacht insurance broker, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Privately educated Arthur Clifton, 25, is a leading organiser for Take Back Power, the protest group which this month dumped manure at The Ritz Hotel in Mayfair and threw apple crumble and custard at the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London.

The group – a successor to Just Stop Oil – has raised £56,000 in an online fundraiser for its campaigns to ‘tackle economic inequality’ and impose greater taxes on the rich.

But The Mail on Sunday can reveal that Clifton’s father, Michael, 58, is a boss at international insurance brokers Chaucer, which boasts of having taken $3.1 billion (£2.3 billion) in premiums in 2024.

Michael is the head of US casualty treaty – where a re-insurer covers a portfolio of risks – and has 30 years’ experience in the business.

In a huge contrast to what Take Back Power stands for, Chaucer boasts on its website of providing insurance coverage for private yachts – the preserve of the superrich – as well as other vessels such as cruise ships and tankers.

A source said: ‘Where Arthur’s dad works is in direct opposition to the aims and objectives of Take Back Power. Arthur has been given a private education and a wonderful lifestyle most young people can only dream of, funded by his dad working in the same environment he claims to want to fight against.’ 

Clifton grew up in an upmarket West London property and attended Latymer Upper School, one of the top public schools in the country where annual fees are £30,000.

Records show he was recently living in a £2 million house.

Clifton was previously a member of direct action group Youth Demand. Earlier this year he was given a 12-month community order, with 120 hours of unpaid work, for causing £5,000 of criminal damage by spraying orange paint at University College London in 2023.

Take Back Power said: ‘It’s time ordinary people decide how to make the super-rich pay their fair share, in order to fix Britain.’

Keep reading

Bombshell Claim: Brown University Was Asked to Cut Cameras Earlier in the Year to Protect Palestinian Activists

After a shooting last weekend at Brown University that left two dead and several others injured, questions are being asked about security lapses that led to those fatal moments.

A new bombshell claim has come out, and if true, it’s completely earth-shattering, not just for the school’s security personnel, but for the entire administration.

On Wednesday, footage of Fox News host Jesse Watters circulated on social media platform X, where the host of “Primetime” claimed leftist activist groups last summer demanded Brown disable their security cameras so pro-Palestine activists could act out with impunity.

“Over the summer, radical left human rights groups demanded Brown disable their security cameras so Palestinian activists could raise hell under the radar.

“Did they cave?

“We asked. No response.”

Brown would by no means be alone in caving to radicals’ demands. Columbia University has seen encampments of pro-Palestine activists.

Harvard has had to fend off claims in recent memory of anti-Semitism against their Jewish students.

The Ivy League is now less known for its academic status and more so for its radical politics.

We have a complete loss of trust in our education systems, and if Watters’ claims about Brown withstand scrutiny, a dangerous situation.

Imagine being a parent to a student at Brown and discovering your child’s life was endangered by the administration’s efforts to appease a group of radical activists, some of whom may not even attend that school.

Likely, most of the students present last Saturday in Tanner Auditorium did not care about nonsensical activist causes.

They were there for an exam review.

Keep reading

Head of major NJ LGBTQ group resigns after being charged with assaulting foster son

The director of New Jersey’s most prominent LGBTQ rights group resigned after he was accused of pulling a foster child out of bed and slapping him repeatedly across the face.

Christian Fuscarino, who has ties to top Dems including Gov. Phil Murphy and Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill, was charged with child endangerment and simple assault for an alleged attack that was caught on camera last month.

“Garden State Equality takes allegations against our staff seriously and we oppose violence of any kind. When we learned about the charge against Mr. Fuscarino, we immediately placed him on leave,” the organization said in a statement.

He later resigned from the group — which he has led since 2016 — and claimed in a statement that the incident was a “private family moment.”

Fuscarino was allegedly caught on security camera yanking the boy out of bed at a home in Neptune City on Nov. 9, according to court records obtained by NJ.com. 

Keep reading

“Hate Speech Disguised as Activism”: Controversy Erupts Over Statements Against White Men

A new controversy has erupted in the United States after an activist, in an interview recorded in public, openly celebrated the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk and made a series of radical statements against white men, whom she described as “the greatest threat” to human well-being.

In the recording, which quickly went viral, the interviewee not only expressed joy over the death of a conservative leader but also justified her stance based on “personal experiences,” making it clear that she does not rely on data, studies, or concrete evidence. Her aggressive rhetoric has sparked outrage among Republican circles and analysts who consider this type of identity-based discourse extremely dangerous.

In her statements, the woman asserted that “white men are literally the greatest threat to humans being fed, housed, clothed, and having their basic needs met,” claiming that her judgment comes solely from what she “knows” rather than verifiable data. When asked to provide examples or statistics to support her claims, she replied: “I’m not a data analyst, I just know the experiences.”

The conversation grew even tenser when the activist directly held the reporter accountable—simply for being a white man—implying that he has supposed “privilege” just by being present conducting the interview. She tried to reinforce this argument by pointing to the presence of homeless individuals nearby, claiming that “none of them” looked like the reporter, although he immediately clarified that white people also experience homelessness.

When the reporter attempted to steer the discussion into a rational direction by asking, “What do you think we should do about white men?”, the interviewee evaded a concrete answer but made it clear that, in her view, the mere existence of white people in public positions constitutes a form of oppression.

The most serious point, however, was her initial statement: “F*** Charlie Kirk… I’m glad that guy is dead.” For Republican analysts and free speech advocates, this kind of rhetoric not only normalizes hate speech but also seeks to dehumanize a specific group of people based on race, justifying symbolic and social violence under the guise of “activism.”

Keep reading