Leading Art Show In Germany Displays Antisemitic Work



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

For understandable reasons, the German government claims to be and sometimes is, acutely sensitive to displays, public or private, of antisemitism. Included in the internationally recognized definition of antisemitism is criticism leveled at Israel that is not leveled against any other country for similar behavior. And especially to be censured as antisemitic are the grotesque comparisons that are made between the IDF and the Nazis. Antisemitic exhibits were present at this year’s Documenta, held in Kassel, one of the two most important displays of contemporary art in the world (the other is the Venice Biennale). A report on this moral disaster is here: “Leading Contemporary Art Show Opens in Germany Amid Political Storm Over ‘Antisemitic’ Exhibits,” by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, June 19, 2022:

The top official tasked with combating antisemitism in Germany has criticized a leading art show that was opened by the country’s president on Saturday for failing to deal with the accusations of antisemitism that have overshadowed its production.

Speaking to the German news outlet Bild am Sonntag, Felix Klein — the German federal commissioner for countering antisemitism — commented that the Documenta art festival, which opened this weekend in the city of Kassel, had failed to dispel the impression that some of the artworks now on display promote antisemitic tropes.

It wasn’t just that the Documenta organizers and some of its participants had ”failed to dispel the impression” that some of the artworks on display were antisemitic. This was no mere “impression,” but an absolutely clear manifestation, of antisemitism

Mounted every five years and regarded as the world’s leading contemporary art show alongside the Venice Biennale, the current edition of the Documenta festival has been curated by Ruangrupa, a collective of Indonesian artists which supports the ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ (BDS) movement seeking to isolate Israel politically, culturally and economically. The Bundestag, Germany’s federal parliament, passed a motion in May 2019 that decried the BDS campaign as antisemitic and urged the government to regard organizations advocating Israel’s elimination, or a boycott of Israel, as ineligible for state funding.

Indonesia is a Muslim country and Indonesians are, unsurprisingly, anti-Israel. This is not a secret. Once it had been understood by the German government that the 2022 show would be organized by a collective of Indonesian artists, did no one in the political echelon worry about what kinds of “artists” and “art” those anti-Israel Indonesians might select to appear in the Documenta festival?

One of the artistic groups participating in the festival, the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center, located in the West Bank city of Ramallah, has repeatedly expressed support for boycotts of artistic events in Israel. The center is named in honor of Khalil al-Sakakini, a Palestinian scholar who lived in Jerusalem prior to Israel’s creation in 1948 and was openly sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

It is the official policy of the German government to oppose BDS and to outlaw any attempts to promote it. But when it came to Documenta it was asleep at the wheel. When did it find out that one of the groups taking part in the festival – a very great honor, one proving most profitable, in the art world – was a Palestinian cultural center named after Khalil al-Sakakini, a prominent Arab scholar who had been a Nazi supporter during World War II. Sakakini believed that Nazi Germany could “liberate Palestine from the Jew.” He wrote that Adolf Hitler had opened the world’s eyes to Jewish world power and that Germany had stood up to the Jews and put them in their place. This is the man after whom that Palestinian “cultural center” was named, the same center now showing its “art” from June to September to millions of visitors expected at Documenta. It would have taken approximately one minute to learn all about the unsavory Sakakini, but no one in the German government bothered. No alarm bells, no curiosity, no worry about Indonesian sympathizers with antisemitic Palestinians choosing the exhibitors.

One of the artworks being exhibited at the show was produced by a Palestinian group calling itself “The Question of Funding.” A series produced by one of its artists, Mohammed Al Hawajiri, titled “Guernica Gaza,” depicts Israeli military operations in Hamas-controlled Gaza as akin to the bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War — an atrocity that was famously rendered in the painting “Guernica” by Pablo Picasso.

The message [of this painting]: Israel’s army is what the Nazi air force was,” responded Leonard Kaminski of the German Antisemitism Research and Information Center (RIAS) in a post on Twitter. According to the widely-accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” are antisemitic.

The Nazis, testing their new planes in 1937, bombed the Basque town of Guernica, where there were only inoffensive civilians, killing or wounding one-third of its inhabitants. The Israeli military, on the other hand, does everything it can to avoid harming civilians. The IDF sends warnings to people in buildings that are soon to be targeted, by every means possible – telephoning, emailing, leafletting, and making use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Given that Hamas always hides its weapons in or near civilian structures – houses, apartment buildings, schools, hospitals – it is hellishly difficult to avoid all civilian casualties, but Israel makes great efforts to minimize them, even if it means allowing some Hamas fighters to escape.

Another artwork made light of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. A graphic assembled by the London-based artist Hamja Ashan shows the silhouette of a chicken on top of a machine gun, alongside the words Popular Front for the Liberation of Fried Chicken (PFLFC) — an allusion to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which gained notoriety for airplane hijackings and gun attacks against civilians during the 1960s and 1970s.

Various Palestinian terrorist groups — the PLO, the DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), the Abu Nidal Organization, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and others less known, as well as Arab terrorists acting on their own. have killed 3,500 Israelis, and wounded 25,000, since the 1948 war. This unfunny graphic of the harmless “chicken” is meant to belittle and mock Israeli anguish over those deaths – see, the graphic says, the PFLP is about as threatening to Israel as a “chicken.” Those Zionists, always making a fuss over nothing. What fun.

In his interview with Bild, Klein [Felix Klein, the German federal commissioner for countering antisemitism] deemed that the allegations of antisemitism leveled at the Documenta festival could not be “credibly dispelled.”

Not “credibly dispelled” is bureaucratese for what should be expressed more forcefully: “the antisemitism in these displays at the Documenta festival is both obvious and nauseating.”

Added Klein: “I very much regret that, especially after the heated public discussion about this.”

In his Saturday address that opened the Documenta festival, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed discomfort at the persistent charges of antisemitism that dogged the show’s preparation, saying that a “boycott of Israel is tantamount to denying its right to exist.”

Steinmeier denounced BDS as “a strategy of exclusion and stigmatization that cannot be separated from antisemitism.” He added that he regretted that the dispute could not be resolved through “a direct discussion between the representatives of the Global South [since when did Muslim states come to represent “the Global South”?], the Jewish community in Germany and Israel.”

By showing up to deliver a speech at the opening of Documenta, German President Steinmeier lent the event an undeserved respectability, when the exhibits I’ve mentioned above — and there were others similarly unpleasant — ought to be the subject of German shame and chagrin. He ought to have refused to appear, and instead explained that he could not in good conscience have anything to do with Documenta because of the clearly antisemitic exhibits it contained and that its organizers refused, after objections were made, to remove it.

Steinmeier’s appearance at the show was strongly criticized by Volker Beck, a former Green Party parliamentarian who now heads the German Israeli Society (DIG).

“It’s a bit pointless to lament now that a direct discussion between the representatives of the Global South and Documenta and the Jewish community in Germany did not come about,” Beck said. “Documenta didn’t want to invite representatives of the [Central Council of German Jews], just plenty of BDS representatives instead.”

Those meticulous Germans were apparently not meticulous enough to vet the exhibitors before the show opened when they might have pressured the organizers to remove the exhibits that displayed anti-Israel messages amounting to antisemitism. 

So what should the rest of us do? Let President Steinmeier’s office know of your deep unhappiness with certain exhibits that were part of this year’s Documenta festival. Make another statement by staying away from Kassel. Don’t visit Documenta, don’t review the exhibits at Documenta, don’t praise anything at Documenta, and don’t buy a damn thing that is now shown at Documenta. And five years from now, when Documenta, its hour come round again, at last, is being organized, make sure such an intolerable result is not repeated.


Antisemitic Muslim 'Cop Of The Year' Tweets Discovered in Cleveland, Ohio:

Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Ismail Quran tweeted Jew-hatred, praise of Hitler



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The book whose name Ismail Quran bears teaches that the Jews are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

“Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Under Investigation for Anti-Semitic, Pro-Hitler Tweets,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 20, 2022:

Cleveland’s 2019 police officer of the year is under investigation for a series of anti-Semitic social media posts that include praise for Adolf Hitler and the Hamas terrorist organization.

Ismail Quran is under investigation by the Cleveland police internal affairs unit for posting “inappropriate social media content,” a department spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon on Monday.

Quran has posted several anti-Semitic messages on social media, including a “salute to Hitler the great” and messages threatening violence against Jewish people, according to tweets provided by Canary Mission, a watchdog group that tracks anti-Semitic activity online….

The Cleveland police department hired Quran in 2018, several years after most of the public tweets were issued. Quran was presented with a belated 2019 officer of the year award in November 2021, more than a year after Canary Mission first exposed many of Quran’s anti-Semitic posts. At the award ceremony, the department said “Officer Ismail Quran has truly embodied the community policing philosophy for the Cleveland Division of Police.” The Cleveland police department is facing allegations it tried to sweep the controversy under the rug and ignore Quran’s bigotry. The officer is “assigned to administrative duties” while the investigation is underway….

When asked for comment on Quran’s posts, a Cleveland police spokesman informed the Free Beacon that the officer is under investigation, though it is unclear what the repercussions could be….

In October 2015, he stated, “Lol bum ass Jew tried to intimidate me. … Don’t try that shit with me.”

“The Jewish lobby,” he wrote in August 2014, runs “the USA.”

Quran claimed in an August 2014 tweet that the Hamas terror group, which routinely kills Jewish civilians in terror attacks, is merely “defending their land.”

In a July 2014 tweet, Quran wrote, “Fuck that Jew” in response to a message wishing an Israeli basketball player good luck. Quran’s tweet included a picture captioned, “LET ME SALUTE TO HITLER THE GREAT. He said ‘I would have killed all the Jews of the world, but I kept some to show the world why I killed them.’”…

Most of these posts were active as of June 2022, though many were deleted when reports about Quran’s rhetoric began to emerge. Canary Mission has documented all of them on its website.



'Salute to Hitler:' Cleveland cop investigated for antisemitic posts - The Jerusalem Post


Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Under Investigation for Anti-Semitic, Pro-Hitler Tweets


Cleveland’s ‘Officer of the Year’ Praised Hitler, Joined Facebook Group Honoring Bin Laden


Josh Sigurdson talks with Tim Picciotto, The Liberty Advisor about the shocking move to crash both the stock market and the economy on purpose in order to get us into the Great Reset agenda for a global technocratic cashless currency backed by the SDR at the IMF.
For the last two years, the establishment has worked hard to commit people to subservience and eugenics. Now we are witnessing the next part of the agenda. This will involve the destabilization of the global economy, supply chain, stock market, etc.
As Fauci, Birx, and Gates call for further restrictions, we're about to see a massive shift in the over-all narrative. And WW3 isn't out of the question either.


Between hyperinflation and World War III, most of humanity doesn’t stand a chance



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) As the world inches closer to another world war, food shortages, social unrest, and hyperinflation are following suit. And when all is said and done, much of the world’s population will likely not make it.

Ever since Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, the stability of the global economic climate has gone off a cliff. It was bad before that, of course, but things seem to have gone into hyperdrive since February.

The Great Recession Blog put together a broad picture of some of the most notable areas where either background inflation (rising producer costs) or consumer inflation is rising significantly, one of the big ones being oil.

“Oil, of course, impacts the price of just about everything, and there is no cavalry here that is going to come to the rescue for anyone, in spite of Biden’s biddings,” the blog explains.

Oil giants like Exxon are boasting massive profit increases due to the shortages created by Russian sources being taken offline, while consumers at the pump are paying higher prices than ever before in our nation’s history.

“Apparently shortages are good for business … at least for some businesses – the ones with their own ample supplies, who see gushers of profits in times like these,” the blog explains.

Will there be enough food to go around at this time next year?

Rising energy costs also directly affect the food sector, as is now being seen perhaps most prominently in Germany, where food prices are increasing 20 to 50 percent.

The United States is seeing glimpses of this as our own energy supplies have been hampered by Biden regime policies that once again made the country energy-dependent rather than energy-independent, which we were under Donald Trump.

The situation is getting so bad all around the world now that the prospect of widespread famine and starvation is becoming a reality. Energy costs the most, fertilizer is in shorter supply, and crop yields are already suffering in many places due to inclement weather – what else is next?

“Of course, financial aid doesn’t fill bellies in places where food doesn’t exist due to lack of fertilizer and/or due to crops not being planted in the major food-producing nations for the world as well as within those nations,” the blog explains.

“What helps is food shipments, and food shipped from the U.S. to other nations to prevent starvation inevitably means some food shortages in the U.S. on a smaller scale and certainly higher prices as people scramble to get their hands on the limited food that is available.”

If there is not enough food to share, however, then this scenario quickly becomes much worse, leading to riots and much worse the longer it persists.

“In a time when one calamity – the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis – hit the entire world (with the economic impacts largely due largely to our national responses to COVID) another calamity – war – hits the entire world (partially due to our global responses to it),” the blog further reveals.

“Each calamity, along with the baked-in inflation already fueled by years of central bank profligacy, weakens our ability to absorb the next one.”

It is almost expected that something new, big, and catastrophic is just waiting to be unleashed next, even as we hobble through the current nightmare. It is almost as if a perfect storm is ready to be unleashed when the time is right, tipping the entire global economy past the point of no return (if it is not already there now).

“I find myself wondering what global calamity after this will fly in like a black swan to take everything down because we have exhausted our resilience all over the world and seem hell-bent on continuing to do so with wars and sanctions no one can afford.”

The latest news coverage about the global economic implosion can be found at

Sources include:

Modern Day Brown Shirts Suppress Free Speech at Yale Law

Why the heckler’s veto is wrong and why universities must prevent its use.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

As further confirmation that universities have devolved into islands of repression in a sea of freedom, some 120 Yale Law School students seriously disrupted a March 10th event. Sponsored by the Yale Federalist Society, the event featured Kristen Waggoner, lead counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association (AHA), appearing together on the panel to discuss (ironically, it turns out) free speech issues. 

Yale’s LGBTQ students had already mobilized their opposition to the appearance of Waggoner, particularly because ADF, they claimed in a flyer they distributed, “is an organization designated by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] as a hate group” and that the Federalist Society’s invitation to Waggoner provided “a veneer of respectability [that] is part of what allows this group to do work that attacks the very lives of LGBTQ people in the US and globally.” Once it has been predetermined that the organization for which Waggoner is lead counsel was anti-gay, it no longer mattered what she would say at the event. The moral scolds at Yale Law School had already decided she should be canceled and forbidden from giving her opinions about anything at all.

Preventing someone with opposing views to even speak, to make his or her opinions known and heard by the campus community, means that the disruptors are so sure of their beliefs, so positive that their perception is the valid one, the only true one, that they are comfortable with suppressing the alternate beliefs and ideology of those whose speech they seek to silence. Students, even graduate law students, are certainly not omniscient nor do they know the single truths about a range of topics guest speakers bring into debates. Their experience is insufficient to make them credible arbiters of what may be said, and what must not be said, on university campuses. 

They do not have the moral right or intellectual capacity to gauge what is bad speech and what is good speech. 

And they exert their unearned moral and intellectual superiority to silence ideological opponents because feckless administrators have tolerated this outrageous behavior, the use of what is known as the “heckler’s veto,” for too long now and are reaping the inevitable backlash. 

The heckler’s veto is an unethical tactic used the advance one’s own beliefs by defeating an ideological opponent’s argument by silencing him, instead of having to offer a compelling argument of one’s own; someone with alternate views has his speech canceled or, if it is held, shouted down, disrupted, and jeered at.

When students shout down a speaker with whom they disagree and refuse to even let that person voice their opinions—regardless of how abhorrent or aberrant the disruptors think them to be—they are acting both rudely and pretentiously, assuming that their opinions are so valid and powerful that someone with opposing ideas does not even deserve to have them aired and considered. And when law students behave in this manner, as they did in a similarly grotesque fashion recently at UC Hastings School of Law when they shouted down Georgetown’s Ilya Shapiro, one might question both their intellectual maturity and their ability to maintain suitable judicial temperament as future lawyers.

Additionally important, when a speaker like Waggoner is invited to the Yale campus, she is a guest of the entire law school, and it is neither the right nor role of a few self-selected students to censure speakers and decide—in advance—that the speaker has no right to even air his or her views. In most cases, speakers who have been shouted down and prevented from speaking are highly-educated, academically-accomplished, and appropriately credentialed individuals with many years of professional experience behind them, so their ideas are formed by far more education, accomplishment, and intellectual activity than the protesting college students themselves have, making attempts by activist students to suppress the speech of those whose intellects are superior seem not only discourteous and audacious but misguided.  

Waggoner, for example, was the lead counsel for the First Amendment rights case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which she argued before the United States Supreme Court. The law students who disrupted her speech at Yale may disagree with her position on whether a baker should be compelled to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, but her legal skills and knowledge are evident, as is the insight and perspective she brings to a debate over this current cultural issue.

The censorious Yale brown shirts, like their fellow travelers on other campuses, have created their own definitions of free speech, putting limits on it that are contrary to what universities say it is and should be, and classifying certain speech—that with which they disagree—as harmful, cruel, even “violent”—sometimes manifesting itself as “hate speech” because it might, in their minds, discomfort a member of a victimized identity group.

But the Constitution and most university speech codes do not contain those exemptions, nor should they. So-called hate speech is a political categorization, not a legal one.

And the notion that an LGBTQ student, real or imaginary, somewhere may find offense if Waggoner speaks at Yale is no justification for silencing her, regardless of how unacceptable some tendentious, intolerant students may think she and her ideas are.

It is neither the responsibility nor duty of universities to foreclose certain debates because the discussion may hurt someone’s feelings somewhere. And it is certainly not the right of self-selected moral scolds to censor the speech of which they disapprove and promote and allow only speech with which they agree. Such an approach violates both the letter and spirit of academic free speech precepts.

In fact, this very sentiment is defined in the concise but eloquent 2014 University of Chicago Statement on Freedom of Expression, commonly referred to as the Chicago Principles. “The ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict,” the statement reads, in words echoing Yale’s own version of a free speech declaration, the 1974 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale,” commonly known as the Woodward Report. “But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility . . . concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” [Emphasis added.]

Universities, including Yale, encourage vigorous responses by students and faculty to speech with which they disagree, including courteous protests outside the venue, the use of placards, sitting in silence at the event with armbands, or issuing flyers and other material encouraging attendees to avoid the event or read alternate information. But vocal disruptions—shouting, pounding on desks, jeering, using noisemakers, or otherwise interfering with a speaking event in a way that prevents attendees to hear the speech—all of those modes of behavior are specifically prohibited. Reports describing the Yale event, however, suggested that the pounding on desks, shouting, and vigorous disruption were so excessive that faculty and students in other rooms in the same building felt and heard the noise through the walls.

Freedom of speech, contrary to the thinking of some activists, does not mean freedom to suppress the speech of another by drowning out his or her speech with yours.

“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus,” the Chicago Principles read, “and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.” 

Additionally, the university has a duty to ensure that any individual on campus is allowed to speak and present his or her views, and the university has an obligation to protect that right by enforcing, if necessary, cordial behavior and decorum and removing anyone who violates that expected behavior. “To this end,” the statement continues, “the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”

In fact, Yale law professor Kate Stith, who moderated the event, can be seen in a video recording of the event struggling to read aloud Yale’s free speech policy, although the rude response from the demonstrators was that “this protest is free speech,” and her admonition was ignored.

Yale’s own Woodward Report rejected the idea “that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive . . . [and] [t]hey make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored, or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.”

Students must be told during orientation that disruptions such as the type discussed here will never be tolerated, are never appropriate, and will lead to punishment of the offending students, up to and including suspension or expulsion.

Assuming a speaker is the invited guest of a registered student group and is recognized by the university as such, all invited speakers must be treated with civility, courtesy, and deference. Attendance at an event like the Yale lecture was not mandatory, so if a guest speaker’s ideas are toxic or repulsive then a student can choose to not attend an event, but it is not the right of an individual student or group of students to decide that a speaker because his or her ideology is in opposition to the students’, should not be allowed to speak and deserves to have his or her event shut down.

After the outrageous Yale event, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman suggested in an email to his fellow federal judges that the behavior of the law students involved in shutting down the invited speakers should rightly disqualify them from holding future clerkships, “that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges,” he wrote, “should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.”

Whether that punishment is appropriate or just, the truth is that when they do become lawyers, these law students will have to hear competing arguments in a case, convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of an argument, and successfully argue for their client based on reason, facts, legal precedent, and intellectual ability. 

As future lawyers, they will not be able to pound on a table and suppress the speech of others in the courtroom, including opposing counsel and a judge. They will not be able to only present their side of a case without having the other side present theirs. And the university is a place where the same decorum and procedures for promoting views, developing intellectual arguments, providing facts and research to support one’s opinions, and inspiring academic inquiry and scholarly debate is fundamental to the advancement of learning. 

That is precisely why universities exist and why any attempts to suppress certain speech—because it is currently out of favor or novel or even controversial—are antithetical to what the university represents and why, either in a law school classroom or in a courtroom, unfettered free speech is paramount, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, even “for the thought that we hate.”

Photo: Washington Free Beacon YouTube 

Ukrainian President Zelensky delivers virtual address to United States Congress~DR. STEVE TURLEY: ZELENSKY CALLS FOR WORLD WAR THREE


Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenskyy is calling for nothing less than World War III, and our feckless incompetent Republican leaders look like they’re ready to give it to him! I’m not going to beat around the bush at all in this video! Anyone who supports a so-called no-fly-zone in Ukraine enforced by NATO is calling for World War III, and potentially tens if not hundreds of millions of people will be killed because of it!

Robert Spencer vs. Joseph Puder: How Much Should We Get Involved in Ukraine?


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Editors' note: Below is an exchange between Frontpage contributors Robert Spencer and Joseph Puder on Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- and what America and the West must do about it. We hope our readers will find this dialogue/debate between two of Frontpage's finest to be thought-provoking and enlightening.

Joseph Puder: The West Has Not Learned The Lessons of World War II.
We need a Churchill in the White House, not a feeble Chamberlain.

The scenes of the Russian invasion into Ukraine are reminiscent of 81 years ago when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in what was called “Operation Barbarossa.” Nazi troops stormed the Ukraine fields with thousands of tanks and Stuka dive bombers. Behind them was Hitler’s Einsatzgruppen, SS murderers set out to murder every Jew in the territories of Ukraine that the Nazi army occupied.  

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, has copied the same tactics. Claiming his armies were merely on military maneuvers and that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he ordered his armies with thousands of soldiers, tanks, and jets to invade Ukraine. In 1939, Adolf Hitler, who had committed Germany not to attack the Soviet Union under the Treaty of Non-Aggression known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, broke the treaty and invaded the Soviet Union with massive force. And, like the murderous Nazi Einsatzgruppen, Putin sent a similar group of Chechen murderers to assassinate Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and members of his government.   

Hitler, in the summer of 1941, already had Europe almost entirely under his brutal boot, but his “lebensraum” or living space concept, which he specified in his book, “Mein Kampf,” and speeches, required him, in his mind to remove the Slavic and other so-called non-Aryan peoples in Eastern Europe from their land and populate them with German people. So naturally, Hitler was not going to stop anywhere ‘while the going was good.’    

Let us be clear, Putin is not Hitler, he is not the sadist and antisemitic murderer that Hitler was. Nevertheless, he too has a dream of restoring to Russia the title of the super-power that the Soviet Union became after World War II. He is a Russian nationalist whose formative years in the Soviet Union were spent absorbing Soviet propaganda and subsequently becoming a KGB officer. It made him a staunch believer in Russian power. His father fought with the Red Army in WWII, and his native Leningrad suffered enormously during World War II. He also learned from the example that Hitler had provided, that when your potential enemies are weak, it is time to strike.  

Hitler had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to deal with. An appeaser who desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs, and indeed, the costs were much higher for Britain and the world for not recognizing that evil can only be stopped by force and not by appeasement. Had the allies stopped Hitler early on in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland, World War II would never have occurred. Even in 1938, before Hitler annexed by force the Czechoslovakian territory of the Sudetenland under the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Chamberlain sold out the Czechs, and got in return World War II. Had the western powers used the military option, the German military High Command (the Wehrmacht) would have removed Hitler from power, as was revealed in later years.   

Putin, like Hitler, views US President Joe Biden as weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain. A person who refuses to use the military option with the radical regime of the Ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and would certainly not dare to challenge Russia’s military might. Putin figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia. Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.  

It is apparent to Putin that President Biden and the other major western leaders fear him enough not to challenge his actions other than with words and economic sanctions that hitherto have had little impact on Putin and his regime. He took Crimea in March 2014 from Ukraine, and the Obama administration’s reaction was so anemic that it only encouraged him to go further and initiate the separatist violent rebellion against the Ukrainian government in the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine), less than a month later. As the case of the US imposed sanctions on Iran has proven, sanctions cannot alter the behavior of a radical authoritarian regime, and only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course.   

There was a time when the US did just that, using the military option. President John F. Kennedy did it during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; he took military action after diplomacy failed. True, the Soviet missiles in Cuba posed an existential threat to the US… And yet, President Lyndon Johnson did it in the Middle East, when the Soviet Union threatened to send its troops to aid Syria against Israel during the Six-Day War of June 1967.  

Uri Bar-Noi, in a report for the Wilson Center dealing with the Soviet Union and the Six-Day War, had written his article based on revelations from the Polish government archives, “The Soviet Union military took practical steps to assist Syria in stopping the advance of Israeli troops into Syrian territory toward the end of the war. These steps included a naval landing, airborne reinforcement, and air support for ground operations. Military operations were, however, eventually aborted for fear of American retaliation.” President Johnson responded by putting American forces on standby, ready to respond to the Soviet’s moves.   

In today’s climate of near pacifism in the US and the western world, there are no Churchills to be found. There is however one inspiring Churchill-like person and that is the leader of Ukraine – President Volodymyr Zelensky. He alone has stood up to the bullying of Vladimir Putin with the determination of David facing Goliath, and that in spite of the odds facing him. He inspired his people and the world by taking on a nuclear superpower with its enormous military machine and an abundance of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. He alone put into deeds what it means to fight for freedom and human dignity. 

While Biden and others filled the airwaves with platitudes, they fear facing the Russian bear. Fortunately for Winston Churchill, he was able to, after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) enjoy the benefits of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Zelensky and Ukraine remain alone in fighting an unrestrained aggressor. Sadly, never has America needed a Churchill more in the White House than now. Instead, we have a feeble Chamberlain. 

Robert Spencer Responds: What Are the Real Lessons of World War II?
It’s true: we need a Churchill, but we don’t need a world war.
It’s interesting that Joseph Puder begins his article calling for the U.S. to stand up much more firmly to Putin than it is doing now by likening the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine to the German army’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Puder doesn’t mention the fact that many Ukrainians fought tenaciously on the side of the Nazis in that conflict; nor does he mention that fighting in Ukraine now against the Russians is the Azov Battalion, a gang of actual neo-Nazis, not the kind the establishment media sees whenever a guy goes out wearing a MAGA hat. Nor are they some outliers: in 2014, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called them “our best warriors.”

This is not to say that Russia’s invasion is justified, or that Americans should not support Ukraine’s resistance; it’s only meant to illustrate that sometimes matters are much more complicated than meets the eye, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a quintessential example of that.

Puder is correct that Neville Chamberlain “desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs,” and appeasement failed before World War II and will fail to stop Putin. He is also correct that Putin, like everyone else on the face of the earth, sees Old Joe Biden as “weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain.” According to Puder, Putin “figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia.” He sees Putin’s statement that this would be considered an act of war as an empty threat: “Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.”

It is undoubtedly true that Putin sees Biden as weak. It is less certain that if the U.S. sets up a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the Russians will not see it as a casus belli and start World War III. And as odious as Putin’s actions in Ukraine are, they aren’t our fight. Volodymyr Zelensky, for all his heroism, is tied into the World Economic Forum cabal. Ukraine is a corrupt kleptocracy with still-unexplained ties to the Biden family; it was a Ukrainian energy firm that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job for which he was completely unqualified, in an obvious case of buying influence. Except for brief periods, Ukraine was part of Russia for a thousand years, until 1991. Putin may go on from Ukraine to menace NATO states, and that could be a legitimate casus belli, but Ukraine is no hill to die on or to start a world war on. It is not actually the United States’ responsibility to solve the problems of all the people in the world, and there will always be tyrants, invasions, and occupations. We can’t fix them all, especially with our woke military spending time on gender theory that it could be spending on learning to fight.

In this connection, it is important to recall that even as the Nazis stormed across Europe in 1939, 1940, and 1941, swiftly conquering Poland, Norway, France, and more, the United States did not enter the war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted very much to get into the war, but he could not sell to the American people the idea that it was the responsibility of the American people to fight for Poland, Norway, or France. It was much more widely understood then than it is now that the United States of America is not the world’s policeman or repairman, and will only expend its resources fruitlessly when it tries to act as such (see, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Roosevelt didn’t enter the war, in fact, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11. It was at that point, and not before then, that World War II became our fight. Roosevelt had given all manner of aid to the British before Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Biden’s handlers, if they have any spine at all, should do the same in this case, but the idea that, as Puder says, “only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course” runs the risk of provoking a real war, one that could be far more catastrophic than any war the planet has seen up to now.   

There is no doubt that Puder is right: America needs a Churchill in the White House. But when Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain, the war in Europe had already been raging for eight months. He didn’t start the war by reckless actions in a conflict that did not involve his country. We need a prudent leader of his type now, one who will know how much is enough and how much is too much in dealing with Putin. As it is, our feckless State Department and dementia-ridden president are foolishly writing checks their woke military can’t cash.

*Joseph Puder Responds: Evil, If Not Stopped, Will Swallow Us All.

If Vladimir Putin wants a global nuclear war, he could choose multiple reasons to serve as a casus belli and wage war. If pressed hard by western sanctions, including the cutting off of his oil and gas revenues, he is as likely to consider it a casus belli, and turn against the NATO allies. Putin, I have no doubt, feels just as intensely about his economic strangulation as he does about a no-fly zone in and around Lviv, to protect the fleeing Ukrainian refugees, should the US and NATO allies consider imposing it.

Robert Spencer is correct about Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and I should add the rabid antisemitism on the part of many Ukrainians during WWII, and even to some extent today. Naturally, there were some Ukrainians who saved Jews as well. My own parents escaped being murdered by Ukrainians during WWII. My mother’s courage and Russian troops nearby saved them from certain death. Modern Ukraine is different, it seeks to be democratic, and share western values, and Volodymyr Zelensky is not Petro Poroshenko. In the late 1930s or 1940s, the thought of a Jewish president in Ukraine would have been impossible. Today, Ukraine looks to the west – not to the east, and it should be embraced.

Spencer isn’t exactly accurate when asserting that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years.” In fact, Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital. The Kievan state existed until the year 1240 when the Mongol hordes crushed it. Actually, Putin has claimed Ukraine for historical and religious (Russian Orthodoxy) reasons. He forgets however that Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia. Kiev originated the Cyrillic alphabet and Russian Orthodoxy.

Let’s be clear, I am not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia; understandably, such a conflict could lead to World War III and an end to life as we know it. We must however understand that Putin is not some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west, and his Mother Russia. He is though, succeeding in intimidating the west. When he took Crimea and effectively tore the Donbas region out of Ukraine, the Obama administration and its western allies whimpered, and condemned, but did nothing. And when Obama set up a “red line” against the Syrian dictator upon his use of chemical weapons on his people, he pathetically let it slide…President Joe Biden’s responses to foreign aggression is even more pathetic, as we have seen last year in the Afghanistan debacle.  

Putin believes that Russia has some justified reasons to fear the expansion of NATO eastward, and at the same time, he seeks to recreate the former Soviet Union. A child of Soviet propaganda, Putin envisions a superpower Russia with all the natural resources of its former republics such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. In a 2014 interview with the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, he (Gorbachev) stated that he thought that the NATO enlargement and incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries was a “big mistake,” and a “violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made in 1990.

All of the above notwithstanding, Ukraine held democratic elections, and elected Volodymyr Zelensky as president. The Ukrainian people, moreover, have the right to determine their future, a right Putin does not have. And, if the people of Ukraine choose to join NATO, or the EU, as a sovereign state they have the right to do so.

The real question is where will Putin stop? Will he be satisfied with subjugating Ukraine against the will of most of its people? Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary, all of them border Ukraine; will he push further into these states to punish them for supporting Ukraine? Putin is obviously not deterred by the likes of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emanuel Macron, or Olaf Scholz. He recognizes the near pacifism in the western world, and he is not frightened by western economic sanctions, since they have not hitherto impacted him personally, or for that matter, Russia.  

Spencer is correct about FDR wanting to fight Nazi Germany but he could not sell the American people on entering the war to save Poland, France, or other conquered nations. There is a difference however this time around. Article 5 of the NATO charter specifies that the US is committed to fight against any aggression committed against a fellow NATO member. True, Ukraine is not yet a NATO member, and therefore the US has no legal obligation to protect it. But the American people today are far less isolationist than in the 1930s or the period just before Pearl Harbor. Most Americans see it as a moral obligation to defend innocent civilians, and they are aghast by Russia’s naked aggression. I agree with Spencer that “America is not the world’s policeman,” but we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.

While acknowledging Joe Biden's desire for world peace and avoidance of war is understandable, warning Putin with a credible military option against further Russian expansion is essential. At some point, a no-fly zone will become imperative. Sadly, America needs a Churchill in the White House right now. Instead, it seems, we have a Chamberlain.

*Robert Spencer Responds: There's a Fine Line Between Strength and Provocation.

Joseph Puder is certainly correct that if Vladimir Putin wants war with the United States, he could start it now, trumpeting any number of actions by the U.S. and its allies, from expanding NATO ever eastward to arming Ukraine and more, as the reasons why he had no choice but to declare war. It is clear by now that he doesn’t want a world war, which would almost certainly be a nuclear war of unimaginable devastation, any more than Joe Biden and his handlers do. But Puder believes, not without reason, that Biden’s handlers can and should present a much stronger front to Putin, and that doing so would deter the Russian from continuing to pursue his expansionist goals. While strength is always to be preferred to appeasement of a tyrant, however, the current regime of socialist internationalists and spineless dreamers cannot be trusted to know what constitutes a reasonable show of strength and what constitutes an unwarranted provocation.

Take, for example, the expansion of NATO. In his February 24 speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine, Putin said: “In December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us, continuing to pursue their own goals and disregarding our interests.”

If this is true, it is not hard to imagine Antony Blinken and his team too concerned with making sure the State Department had the right number of racial minorities and proper instruction in Critical Race Theory to concern themselves with Putin’s overtures. They could have and should have known that Russia considers the expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics to be an unacceptable attempt to encircle Russia, as Putin explained in his speech: “I am referring to the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders.”

One doesn’t have to accept Putin’s argument or consider his invasion of Ukraine justified to see that his characterization of Biden’s imperious, elitist State Department is entirely plausible. It is important to point this out now, after the invasion, because the same ham-handed, blinkered, pseudo-intellectual Leftists whose short-sightedness and wrongheadedness let the invasion happen in the first place are still in charge. If a show of strength to Putin can be bungled, they can be counted upon to bungle it.

As for Puder’s claim that it is not accurate to say that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years,” he actually demonstrates that it is accurate by noting that “Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital.” One may quibble over whether Kievan Rus was Russian or Ukrainian, but the telling fact is that it was both and that throughout history the two have been more one people than two. The fact that, as Puder claims I forgot but which was actually the basis of my argument, it is true that “Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia,” and that is precisely why Putin believes he has a claim to it. This is not to say that Ukraine should not be independent unless one wishes also to argue that Austria and Germany should be one state, a proposition I am not at all disposed to favor.

Puder says that he is “not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia,” but the weak and feckless socialist policy wonks who inhabit Biden’s State Department and entire administration have never demonstrated anything comparable to the judiciousness and wisdom of Churchill or anyone else who ever brought a major war to a successful conclusion. Puder is in effect asking that Biden’s gang of arrogant, miseducated children, with no understanding of history, culture, religion, or economics stand up to a canny, unscrupulous, utterly ruthless authoritarian. The consequences of their miscalculation and the hopeless Blinken is certain to miscalculate, would be, as Puder says “World War III and an end to life as we know it.” Putin may not be, as Puder says, “some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west,” but the foreign policy establishment is a bunch of self-infatuated grad students with no understanding of how the world works; he can and would take advantage of their attempts to draw some “red line” that both he and they would know from the outset was spurious.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is a corrupt kleptocracy that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job in a field in which he had no experience, in an obvious attempt to curry favor with Joe Biden. It was a phone call with Zelensky that got Trump impeached, in an obvious partisan witch-hunt, the first time. This is not to say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, or that Putin is not a scoundrel, or that the Ukrainians are not noble in resistance, or that Zelensky is not courageous. But once again, this is not our fight, and making it our fight could so easily spiral out of control that it is imperative that we keep a cool head amid all the prevailing war fever. Haven’t we learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan yet?

Puder admits that Ukraine is not in NATO and so we have no obligation to defend it, but thinks that we should anyway, for “we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.” Well, yes. But that’s why NATO has members and non-members. We are bound, for better or worse, to defend NATO’s members. If this means that we have an obligation to fight evil anywhere else in the world that it may appear, we might as well bring every country in the world into NATO, so that it is clear that we are obligated to fight for them all and to combat evil wherever and whenever it may break out.

That may be a wonderful sentiment, but it is utterly impracticable. Our resources are not infinite, and our self-serving, corrupt leaders are already pouring out our substance for all manner of boondoggles that benefit the American people not a whit. At some point, the gravy train is going to run out. What we really need is a strong America-First president, who would have made clear to Putin from the outset that his adventurism would have terrible consequences, and who would have always acted in the best interests of the American people. If only there were someone on the scene like that.

How a Trial in Finland Could Have Worldwide Effects on Government Persecution of Religion

Finnish Lutherans under investigation for upholding biblical teachings on sexuality ...

Prosecution against Diocesan Dean Juhana Pohjola, ThD - Mission Diocese



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

‘If the prosecution wins, the ability of pastors to preach the gospel is effectively over in Finland, without criminal sanction.’

The trial of two Finnish Christians for publicly stating mainstream religious teachings that reserve sex only for heterosexual marriage is heading towards a judgment scheduled for March 30. The case could end up hitting Finland’s Supreme Court and even the European Court of Human Rights, which means its outcome could affect the rights of religious believers and political dissidents across the world.

Members of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola have been prosecuted now for nearly three years after Rasanen tweeted a picture of Bible verses in June 2019. Complaints about this tweet led to her prosecution under Finland’s “hate crimes” laws.

The government investigation of Rasanen’s tweet uncovered a theological pamphlet she wrote and Pojhola published in 2004, for which they have both been charged. The booklet states classic Christian teachings about sex as reserved only for marriage, and defines marriage as comprising only one man and one woman for life.

“The teachings concerning marriage and sexuality in the Bible arise from love to one’s neighbor,” Rasanen said in a Feb. 17 statement. “This case is about whether it is allowed in Finland to cite the Bible and to agree with it in topics that go against the tide and challenge the current ethos and thinking.”

Oral arguments in the case wrapped up this week on Valentine’s Day. On Feb. 17, a Finnish court also heard a related request from the prosecutor to force a Finnish radio show to take offline a two-minute audio clip of Rasanen speaking about marriage in 2019.

“Being criminally charged for voicing my deeply held beliefs in a country that has such deep roots in freedom of speech and religion feels unreal,” Rasanen told The Federalist.

Prosecutor Seeks to Ban Christian Speech, Including From Pastors

On Feb. 14, Pojhola’s lawyer Jyrki Anttinen argued “if the prosecution wins, the ability of pastors to preach the gospel is effectively over in Finland — without criminal sanction,” said Lorcan Price, a lawyer assisting the case for Alliance Defending Freedom International who attended the Helsinki hearing. An Irishman, Price listened with the aid of a Finnish translator.

The Finnish prosecutor who brought the case is seeking a fine of one-third of Rasanen’s annual income, the public erasure of documents and audio she’s made on the subject, and a financial penalty against the small religious organization Pohjola runs, the Luther Foundation. If the two Christians are convicted, the steepest possible penalty could be two years in prison.

“I’ve been to his headquarters, the Mission Diocese of the Lutheran Evangelical Church,” Price noted. “It’s fairly utilitarian. It’s not luxurious — there’s no marble foyer with a fountain and receptionist. There’s a kitchen and a communal area and Bishop Juhana’s office.”

“They’re a breakaway from the main Lutheran church,” Price continued. In fact, Pohjola was expelled from the state church in 2014, also for affirming classic Christian theology about differences between the two sexes. He was elected bishop by his growing missionary congregations last year. “The main church abandoned the teachings but got to keep all of the buildings. That’s what we have here. He’s in fairly basic accommodation, let’s say. I think anything of their income is outrageous.”

Attempt to Expand Government Censorship

It’s not clear Finland’s hate crimes law even bans controversial speech, but Finland’s top prosecutor is arguing that it does. If the prosecutor wins the case, it would mark an unprecedented expansion of identity laws that exist in most European countries, many U.S. cities and states, and that U.S. Democrats are trying to make a nationwide law in The Equality Act.

“The prosecutor believes the law means you can’t preach the gospel in public, but some believe it means you can’t directly incite violence,” Price noted.

The charges against the two Christians include an attempt to criminalize statements they made years before the law being used to prosecute them passed. That’s the only charge against Pohjola, and one of three charges against Rasanen.

“The fact that Bishop Juhana is even in this trial is Kafkaesque, it’s insane,” Price said. “He’s being charged with something he did as the head of a charitable foundation, the Luther Foundation, that publishes theological documents, for a document he didn’t write that expresses mainstream, orthodox Christian teaching… Finding that Bishop Juhana as a publisher broke the law would damage the rights of publishers to publish things that are controversial and as a church leader [would] damage his ability to publish and evangelize and disseminate in public Christian teaching.”

The Federalist interviewed Pohjola in person in November, and Rasanen via Zoom last week. As their case concluded arguments this week, U.S. members of Congress reiterated their public concerns about its implications for human rights both worldwide and in the United States.

Case Likely To Set International Precedents

It’s likely their case won’t be over even after the court decision likely out at the end of March, said Price. That’s because both parties are likely to appeal if they lose.

If the court convicts Rasanen or Pohjola, or both, their lawyers will “definitely” appeal, Price said. The Finnish prosecutor also seems likely to appeal if the two Christians are not convicted, as she has appealed similar cases attempting to criminalize politically incorrect views, he said.

The Finnish legal system allows prosecutors to appeal if they don’t win a conviction in their first-round at court. In common law countries like England and the United States, usually, only those convicted of crimes can appeal, not their prosecutors, except under unusual circumstances, Price said.

“I think that’s very burdensome for those accused,” he noted. “So you can go through multiple levels of the court and be vindicated at each level and the prosecutor can keep dragging the accused through the courts.”

All this means Rasanen and Pohjola’s cases could very well end up in Finland’s Supreme Court, where if they lose they could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, from where Price spoke to The Federalist by Zoom on Tuesday. That means their case could affect how all of Europe treats Christian doctrines and free speech more broadly.

Like the United States, Europe has been increasingly restricting political and religious speech, especially in international courts against countries seen as unfashionably conservative, such as Hungary and Poland, Price said. This case, therefore, comes at a crucial time as speech rights are receiving less government support than has been long-standing in the West.

Silencing Attempt Backfires

Before this case, Rasanen and Pohjola’s theological booklet was printed years ago in a few hundred copies and mostly used within tiny Lutheran churches. Their prosecution has caused it to be distributed around the world and translated into several other languages, Price said.

“This obscure little pamphlet has made its way around the world thanks to the efforts of the prosecutor to shut it down,” he noted.

Being targeted for their faith has given Rasanen and Pohjola a global platform for preaching the Christian message of forgiveness for all sins and the deep importance to Christians of the Bible as the very Word of God. Rasanen told The Federalist that because of her case, European media are quoting Bible verses and people are debating their meaning. She says she’s received emails from people saying her case has prompted them to start reading the Bible, which the pastor’s wife and grandmother of nine says she’s read repeatedly since age 16.

Rasanen spoke to the huge worldwide audience of Fox News this week about her case. Political and religious leaders around the world have also expressed support for Rasanen and Pohjola’s rights to free speech and religious exercise, which are legally recognized in European human rights agreements.

“Many people and journalists around the world regularly ask me: ‘What keeps you going, from where do you find the courage to speak up?’” Rasanen told The Federalist. “My motivation comes from the Bible and from my will to have an impact on society. A conviction based on the Christian faith is more than a [superficial] opinion. The early Christians did not renounce their faith in lions’ caves, why should I then renounce my faith in a courtroom? I believe it is my calling and honor to defend the foundational rights and freedoms at this point of my life.”

While some people have been scared into silence about their beliefs because of this prosecution, Rasanen said, it’s also prompted 1,000 Finns to stand in front of Parliament holding their Bibles up to “collectively show strong support for the freedom of God’s Word.” The Finnish Association for Freedom of Speech and Religion was also founded last June to support the legal defense for this case and possibly others.

“In one sense the prosecutor has frightened part of the population into being quiet and in another, it has drawn huge attention to the issue,” Price said. “We can’t underestimate the chilling effect of these prosecutions. She [the prosecutor] cannot but regard this as at least a partial success that sending a tweet about the Bible could result in the police coming to your door. Not everyone has the grit and determination of Paivi.

“That’s our concern with these hate speech laws. It denudes society of the opportunity to hear something that can be shocking and provocative but is also a different perspective and for Christians founded on a fundamental truth of scripture.”

Stunning video shows Canadian PM Trudeau ADMITTING his favorite country is China because it’s a “dictatorship”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) If “democratic” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s authoritarianism in dealing with the Freedom Convoy trucker protest caught you by surprise, a video clip that surfaced recently will show you there’s really no surprise there. He is a tyrant in waiting.

The clip dates back to Trudeau’s initial campaign against then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a conservative MP who led Canada from 2006-2015. The Sun News clip shows Trudeau addressing a smallish group at a sort of town hall-style event in which he was asked which country he admired most.

The logical answer would have been “Canada” but it wasn’t. It was China. And why? Because China’s leaders are Communist authoritarians.

“There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China, um, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go greenest fastest, we need to start investing in solar,” he told the crowd.

He then tried to play off his lust for authoritarianism on his then-opponent, Harper.

“There is a flexibility that, I know Stephen Harper must dream about, of having a dictatorship that he can do whatever he wanted, that I find quite interesting” Trudeau added.

Again Stephen Harper did not profess his love for China’s dictatorship, Justin Trudeau did, his sleight of hand and wordplay notwithstanding.

And we have seen his lust for tyranny in his recent words and actions involving the Freedom Convoy truckers.

For example, in recent days, Trudeau also admitted that the only protests he approves of are those he agrees with, meaning, those that empower him and his authoritarian “Liberal” Party.

In remarks regarding the Freedom Convoy, he said: “I have attended protests and rallies in the past. When I agreed with the goals, when I supported the people expressing their concerns and their issues, Black Lives Matter is an excellent example of that.”

“But I have also chosen to not go anywhere near protests that have expressed hateful rhetoric, violence toward fellow citizens. And a disrespect, not just of science, but of the frontline health workers and quite frankly, the 90 percent of truckers who have been doing the right thing to keep Canadians safe, to put food on our tables. Canadians know where I stand. This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with,” he added.

Got it? Black Lives Matter wokeism helps him politically so he “agrees” with it. Freedom Convoy protests are a pushback on his ridiculous vaccine mandate, so those can’t be allowed.

He has also blasted the convoy as being composed of a “small fringe minority” of people who hold “unacceptable views.”

“What we are hearing from some people associated with this convoy is completely unacceptable,” he added at the time.

Those comments drew mocking and derision from others, including liberals.

“It would appear that the so-called ‘fringe minority’ is actually the government,” billionaire SpaceX founder Elon Musk tweeted.

“If the government had the mandate of the people, there would be a significant counter-protest. There is not, therefore they do not,” Musk said in a follow-up tweet.

Trudeau Isn’t Hitler, But…



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Everyone Leftists don’t like is a Nazi, and it has become a hallmark of lazy political discourse to accuse someone of being just like Hitler. But that doesn’t mean that no one in the modern world has any ideological or practical resemblance to the Führer. When he invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, Justin Trudeau invited comparisons to March 23, 1933, when Hitler administered the coup de grace to democracy in Germany with the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial powers. There are similarities (and differences), and they’re enlightening.

Trudeau based his case on the claim that the Freedom Convoy was “not a peaceful protest,” which was flatly false and ironic in light of his bland response to the burning of churches and toppling of statues in Canada last summer. He claimed that the Freedom Convoy was hurting the Canadian economy: “at the borders in different places in the country, the blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. Critical supply chains have been disrupted. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families.”

The Emergencies Act authorizes the government of Canada to “take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times.” These include “the regulation or prohibition of any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland gave the Act more teeth than that, announcing that the Freedom Convoy’s bank accounts would be frozen: “the government is issuing an order with immediate effect, under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations.”

In his address, Trudeau made an important promise: “the scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.”

Adolf Hitler said many similar things in arguing that he needed dictatorial powers. On Feb. 27, 1933, just four weeks after Hitler became Chancellor, the Reichstag, the German parliament building in Berlin, caught fire. The culprit was a Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who apparently had acted alone, although many charged that the whole thing was a Nazi false flag to enable them to institute a dictatorship. Hitler, however, insisted that the Communist Party, which was a considerable force within the Reichstag, had set the fire, and pressed German President Paul von Hindenburg to approve of an emergency law suspending civil liberties. Communist leaders, including the Communist members of the Reichstag, were hunted down and arrested.

The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to enact laws without Reichstag approval and with the same dispatch that Trudeau once admired about Communist China: “Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement unless they prescribe a different date.”

Like Canada’s Emergencies Act, all this was supposed to be only temporary; the Enabling Act was set to expire on April 1, 1937. Once Hitler had consolidated his power and destroyed all the opposition parties, however, there was no question that the Enabling Act would continue: it was renewed by Hitler’s rubber-stamp National Socialist Reichstag in 1937 and 1939, and by decree in 1941 and 1943, the latter time without a time limit.

In his March 23, 1933 speech, Hitler spoke of “the necessity of thoroughly rejecting the ideas, organizations, and men in which one gradually and rightly began to recognize the underlying causes of our decay.” He stated that “the program for the reconstruction of the Volk [German people] and the Reich is determined by the magnitude of the distress crippling our political, moral and economic life. Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery.” Hitler accused the Communists of “pillaging, arson, raids on the railway, assassination attempts, and so on–all these things are morally sanctioned by Communist theory.”

Hitler claimed that the rule of the iron fist was needed in order to revive Germany’s economic fortunes: “To deal with the economic catastrophe, the following is necessary: 1. an absolutely authoritarian leadership at home to create confidence in the stability of conditions; 2. safeguarding peace on the part of the major nations for a long time to come and thus restoring the confidence of the people in one another; and 3. the final triumph of the principles of common sense in the organization and leadership of the economy as well as a general release from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest.”

Related: Bill Maher Says Trudeau Sounds Like Hitler, and He’s Right

Hitler, like Trudeau, promised that his use of the Enabling Act would be limited: “The Government will only make use of this authorization insofar as this is requisite for the implementation of vital measures.”

It would be facile and unfair to say that Hitler’s Enabling Act and Trudeau’s Emergencies Act are one and the same. Despite the soundness of Bill Maher’s observation, Trudeau is not Hitler and is not likely to become a bloodthirsty despot. However, the Enabling Act shows the pitfalls of what Trudeau has now done in Canada, and how easily an Act that allows a government to bypass ordinary procedures designed to protect the rights of citizens can be abused.

Both Hitler and Trudeau situated the need for their Acts in the context of a pressing national emergency that could not be dealt with any other way. Chrystia Freeland claimed that “These illegal barricades are doing great damage to Canada’s economy and to our reputation as a reliable trading partner.” Trudeau and Freeland were clear: the Freedom Convoy was entirely responsible for these alleged economic setbacks, and thus had to be ended for the good of the people. For his part, Hitler claimed that his Enabling Act was necessary to break the power of “criminals” who were destroying Germany’s economic and cultural life.

Both Freeland and Hitler promised ruthless action against those whom they cast as enemies of the people. No one expects Canada to act as ruthlessly as National Socialist Germany did, but there is no doubt that Trudeau and Freeland have embarked upon an extremely dangerous road, and one that lends itself, as the history of Nazi Germany proves conclusively, to all manner of human rights abuses. Once one’s political opponents have been blamed for all the ills the nation is suffering, and one is freed from the need to obtain court orders or respect due process, what remains to restrain the unscrupulous?

The Enabling Act and the Emergencies Act both streamline their governments by freeing them from having to deal with such legal niceties. But whether or not Justin Trudeau ever really abuses such powers, someone could, and there would be nothing in place to restrain him. This is how republics die.

The Only Ones Banning Books are Critical Race Theorists

When censors pretend to be free speech activists.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

After spending the last few years banning Dr. Seuss and literally burning copies of Harry Potter novels in bonfires, and denouncing classic children’s literature like Little House on the Prairie and Mary Poppins as racist, leftists are now accusing conservatives of “banning books”.

When a Minnesota school district removed The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird from its curriculum because it made students "uncomfortable", the NAACP, which has been trying to ban Huck since at least the 50s, cheered. So did the media which celebrated the effort to remove "racist language" that “triggered students of color” from the classroom.

The removal of Mark Twain's authentically anti-racist masterpiece was carried out by anti-racists in school districts from Burbank, California to Lawrence, Kansas. In 2016, a Virginia school district, now at the center of media fear-mongering about book bans after parents succeeded in reclaiming schools from CRT bosses, banned both books because of all the "racial slurs".

Now the censors want to reclaim the mantle of free speech. The media, which described school districts “removing” or “replacing” books on reading lists when leftists were doing it, now calls the removal of books, whether they’re racist critical race theory texts or Maus, as “bans”.

Much like erstwhile liberals went from celebrating Jefferson and Lincoln to toppling their statues, their educational counterparts who had once vocally championed Huck and Mockingbird, and shouted down any effort to keep them out of the classroom, now just as vocally want them out and replaced with the deranged hateful ravings of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi.

Yet instead of being honest about that (or anything else), they duck into a phone booth, doff their censor togs and dress up as free speech crusaders, and then rush back and throw off their free speech tights to go back to burning books. Even by the standards of a movement that is so pathologically Orwellian that it describes protests against vaccine mandates as “authoritarian”, this is a bit much. But the only books they believe should be in school are those whose politics they like, at any given moment, before deciding that they’re hate speech and purging them.

Removing books from a school curriculum isn’t a ban. If it is, then lefties have been banning books forever. It’s not just Huck Finn, there’s hardly a single classic book that hasn’t been denounced for thought crimes. The Wind in the Willows? Racist. Narnia? Islamophobic. The Lord of the Rings? Also racist. Any book written by a white man? Systemically racist.

Recently, a university added a trigger warning to 1984 by George Orwell.

The worst offenders are the proponents of critical race theory, now suddenly crying about censorship, when they had been urging schools, publishers, and readers to stop buying, publishing, and displaying books by white men in the name of racial and gender equity.

A few years ago they were touting a proposal that every racist illiterate stop reading books by white men for a year. You can still find headlines like, "I Read Books by Only Minority Authors for a Year" from the Washington Post, and more explicit posts at book sites like, "Why I'm No Longer Reading Books by White Men", "A Year of No White Men", "The Year I Stopped Reading White People". The crybullies at Goodreads, which is to young adult books what TikTok is to videos of crying teens changing gender on camera, bullied publishers into canceling books and forced writers to unpublish their own books to the wild applause of the media.

Now lefties are subjecting us to their self-righteous pearl-clutching about censoring books.

Parents have a right to determine what their children are reading in school. They have an absolute right to reject the real racism of Ta-Nehisi Coates or Ibram X. Kendi, who dehumanize white people as a group, or, for that matter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if they don’t want their children reading racial slurs, or Maus, if they don’t want them exposed to curse words. Parents don’t need a ‘good reason’ to keep a book off the reading list. Being the parents of their children is good enough to give them veto power over what their children are taught.

But there is a world of difference between taking a book out of a school and banning it.

When you harass publishers and authors into removing a book from sale, you’re banning the book. When you pull classic books from sale and then ban their resale, as the Seuss Foundation did, under pressure, and eBay chose to do on its own, that is an actual book ban.

People who believe that men can become women by wishing hard enough have the right to burn their own copies of Harry Potter, but there’s no mistaking the message of hate and intimidation that sends. There’s a reason the Nazis loved burning books. It’s an act of violence that serves as a temporary substitute for destroying the authors and readers behind them.

Anyone can and should be able to read any book they want. The proponents of critical race theory are the biggest opponents of that idea. They don’t just want books they dislike out of schools, but they want them removed entirely from existence. That’s why they don’t just refuse to read them, or even just burn them, they pressure publishers into eliminating them.

They don’t just do this because they hate the books themselves but as a show of power.

Books have been banned for a whole lot less than racial slurs or accurately describing the world as it was at the time. Beloved classic children’s books like Wind in the Willows had messages read into them. Racial lenses have been placed over classics like Lord of the Rings. And contemporary teen books were forced out of existence for the mere crime of having ‘black’ or ‘slave’ in the title even when they were set in fantasy kingdoms and had nothing to do with race.

This Salem Witch Trial of literature isn’t even about the context of the text, but the hateful power of the social justice censors who are getting high on the fumes from the burning paper.

After all this, the book burners, statue topplers, and crowdsourced censors suddenly want to act like they’re the champions of free speech because parents don’t want critical racist texts, underage pornography, and the other garbage that the Left currently champions (before deciding a decade from now that it also needs to be banned) taught to their children.

The old liberals of the ACLU had some personal credibility when attacking censorship, the postmodern identity politics leftists who live and breathe censorship have less than none.

Much of lefty politics is built on wearing liberal skins and echoing liberal ideas in between illiberal bouts of destroying everything they don’t approve of and demanding that everyone swear allegiance to their politics. Sometimes it fools the declining population of Boomer liberals.

Just ask Obama.

The very last people who should ever don the mantle of free speech are critical race theorists who believe that everything is racist and should be banned unless it was made by them. They are obsessed with “whiteness” in architecture, art, and literature the way the Nazis were obsessed with finding trace elements of Jewishness in Einstein’s theories and Strauss waltzes.

Banning books isn’t just something you do: it’s central to how you think of the world.

Parents trying to determine what books their children are exposed to aren’t trying to control the world, but critical race theory is concerned not with individuals, but all of society. Leftists believe that they should control not just what they read, but what everyone reads and believes.

This is the authoritarian totalitarian impulse that moves them to both ban and compel books.

Reading to them is not an individual choice, but a collective one. The mass production of books and the transformation of reading from a public activity to a private one made individualism possible. Even in totalitarian societies, people smuggled books and read them secretly. In those stolen hours, seeing words by candlelight, they won the freedom of the soul.

Today, Big Tech and their Big Publisher allies want people reading on Kindles and on digital platforms where books are not truly owned, but allocated by digital rights management lurking in the cloud which can delete any book at any time, making its words and the ones and zeros behind them disappear. Turning a private act into a public one, controlled by monopolies, and policed by the politically correct is a technosocial ecosystem that destroys individual reading.

Critical race theory proponents are coming for our books, they’re coming for our culture, and our souls, and even as they burn and loot our intellectual heritage, they claim to be the victims.

In a perversity that would have stunned even Orwell and Swift, the book burners claim that they’re fighting censorship, the censors insist that they’re defending themselves against painful words, and the racists declare that they’re imposing racism in the name of anti-racism.

And if you doubt that they’re the victims, they’ll burn you too.



Illinois Democrat demands concentration camps for anti-vaxxers and those who refuse forced government medications


— Chicago Sun-Times


President Barack Obama (2016) ● Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi ● Senator Tom Cullerton


Sierra Club ● Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois ● Illinois National Organization for Women  ● Planned Parenthood ● Personal PAC ● Illinois Federation of Teachers ● Stand for Children IL ● Equality Illinois ● AFSCME Chapter 31 ● INA-PAC ● AFL-CIO  ● SEIU Local 73 ● Fraternal Order of Police ● IUOE Local 150 ● UFCW 881 ● United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) ● IEA


On April 27, 2017, HB 3502 introduced by Chief Sponsor, Deb Conroy, passed with unanimous support. This bill's purpose was to set up an advisory council with the goals of developing recommendations and an action plan to address the barriers to early and regular screening and identification of mental health conditions in children, adolescents, and young adults in Illinois.[12]

Throughout her career as a state representative, Deb Conroy has shown her support for same-sex marriage and enforcement of equality laws by co-sponsoring the SB 10 (Authorizes Same-Sex Marriage) and the SJRCA 75 (Ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment), which were both passed. Conroy has also voted in favor of HB 217, which prohibits sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors and was executively signed into law on August 20, 2015.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Of course, it’s a female Democrat lawmaker from Illinois. Rep. Deb Conroy (D), 46th District, has proposed a new law (HB 4640) that would empower the State of Illinois to round up anti-vaxxers at gunpoint and throw them into state-run concentration camps for an indefinite period of time. This is entirely consistent with the authoritarian lunacy of Democrats and especially female Democrats who have become raging, power-hungry “mask Karens” who seek to rule over everyone.

Here’s the official Illinois General Assembly link to the status of the bill.


Villa Park State Rep. Deb Conroy (Democrat) wants to “isolate or quarantine persons who are unable or unwilling to receive vaccines, medications, or other treatments.”

HB 4640 is scheduled to be heard in the Illinois House Human Services Committee on February 2 at 9:00 AM.

If HB 4640 were to become law, persons exposed to an infectious disease could be placed under Public Health Department observation, only possible in a contained atmosphere with Department watch guards, some suggest such as a concentration camp.

The bill says:

To prevent the spread of a dangerously contagious or infectious disease, the [Public Health] Department may, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of this Section, isolate or quarantine persons whose refusal to undergo observation and monitoring results in uncertainty regarding whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a dangerously contagious or infectious disease or otherwise poses a danger to the public’s health.

Here’s the Democrat pushing this: Rep. Deb Conroy:

The proposed law would also allow any local Illinois “official” (i.e. criminal government goon) to access the vaccine status of all individuals as a pretense to rounding up the unvaccinated and throwing them into covid concentration camps.

From the description at

Amends the Department of Public Health Act. Provides that emergency access to medical or health information, records, or data shall include access to electronic health records, provided that the local health authority shall be unable to alter the electronic health records.

There are currently 12,634 “witness slips” filed in opposition to the bill, as seen at this link on

The number of proponents in support of the bill is 81.

Your government is the terrorist

It appears that Rep Deb Conroy has not yet sufficiently terrorized the people of Illinois to get them to agree to be rounded up and taken away to concentration camps. No doubt the psychological operations programs will have to be ramped up to achieve that goal.

Here’s a link on how to contact Rep. Deb Conroy. She’s a member of the Illinois House Democratic Women’s Caucus and — no surprise — was also a District 205 School Board member. If you contact her, be polite. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming what she is.

If you ever wondered what an actual vaccine Nazi looks like in modern-day America, get a good look at this Karen. This is what the Holocaust looks like in America: Power-hungry lunatic left-wing women demanding that men with guns round up all their political opponents and throw them into concentration camps. Conroy would have felt right at home in Nazi Germany, circa 1939.

It’s no surprise, then, that Conroy is the Chair of the House Mental Health Committee. Never forget how the Nazis declared their opponents to be mentally deficient so they could throw them into insane asylums and have them exterminated. It seems like it’s always the people running the mental health sectors of society who are the most insane and power-hungry, doesn’t it?

Here’s Rep. Conroy with her “mental health” award placard:

Finally, if you live in Illinois, you should probably consider exiting that bankrupt state anyway, as the financial picture for the State of Illinois is nothing short of disastrous. Even with covid bailout money, Chicago and St. Louis are beyond bankrupt. The city of Chicago currently owes $43,700 per taxpayer, reports

Fiscal watchdog Truth in Accounting’s July 2021 report showed the Windy City’s pension-fueled debt rose by $2.3 billion from 2019 to 2020 despite receiving substantial federal aid during the pandemic.

Maybe vaccine Holocaust pusher Deb Conroy should spend more time worrying about how Illinois is going to pay its bills than hounding citizens over vaccine compliance and wasting money on guards for covid concentration camps.

Also, note that it’s only Democrat-controlled states that are pushing concentration camps. This insane nonsense does not fly in red states.

In any case, if you contact Rep. Conroy, be polite and state your case firmly and calmly. Better yet, just vote tyrants like this out of power in the 2022 mid-term elections. The way to end tyranny is to stop supporting it, obviously.

For those Illinois citizens who keep voting Democrat, you are getting the tyranny you deserve.

Get full details on this story and much more — including the North Carolina fertilizer plant fire — in today’s Situation Update podcast:


Horrific CIA Experiments & Programs Exposed by Victim

The Central Intelligence Agency has been conducting horrific programs involving mind control, sexual abuse, psychological terrorism and more, author and self-declared survivor of these schemes Dr. Juliette Engel tells The New American magazine's Alex Newman in this interview from the Red Pill Expo. Dr. Engel, who said she was sucked into this world by her father, explained that the "satanic" programs and experiments such as MK Ultra have roots in Nazi Germany and the New World Order. Later, after Engel broke free from the evil, she moved to Russia and helped rescue human-trafficking victims.

Supreme Court VIOLATES NUREMBERG CODE, BETRAYS America and authorizes outrageous vaccine mandate for health care workers; does NOTHING to affirm human right to reject dangerous medical experiments



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Yesterday, the US Supreme Court proved once again that it will betray the American people at every opportunity in order to forward the government’s anti-human agenda that claims “they” own your body.

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS struck down the OSHA mandate affecting all employers with 100 or more employees, but the court affirmed the legality of the vaccine mandate for all health care workers, including those in nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, and more. This decision means SCOTUS just declared the government owns your body and can force you to take experimental medical injections in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Even in striking down the wider OSHA mandate, SCOTUS did not state that your body belongs to you. Instead, they said Congress hasn’t yet authorized OSHA to have enough power to force you to take these vaccines. In doing this, SCOTUS left the door wide open for Congress to legislate vaccine mandates and force them into your body, against your will.

Justice Roberts voted with the majority in both decisions, meaning he voted against the wider OSHA mandate but voted in favor of the health care mandate. On both issues, the left-wing Marxist justices who seem ripped right out of communist China — Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor — voted to grant the federal government total ownership over your body. Only Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch reliably defended the right of the individual against the tyranny of the state.

This means about half the US Supreme Court — even after the Trump appointments — believes you are a literal slave to the US government.

If you can’t control your own body, then you don’t “own” it

If you aren’t allowed to control your own body, then you don’t own it. Who owns it? The government owns it, according to SCOTUS, and all they need is to grant themselves sufficient legal authorization to forcibly inject you with absolutely anything they want, even if they have to change the definition of a “vaccine” in order to do it (which is exactly what they already did).

The US government, in other words, is running an actual Nazi-style medical holocaust that is forcing the American people into dangerous medical experiments against their will.

That new legalization push by Congress to mandate medical experiments for everyone is right around the corner, by the way, and all they need is the deliberate release of a hemorrhagic fever virus that achieves a high fatality rate. Once the bodies start piling up, the media’s mass hysteria will push lawmakers to issue a new round of vaccine mandates that SCOTUS will uphold.

Make no mistake: The deliberate, weaponized release of a hemorrhagic fever strain has already been decided and is likely already underway.

At that point, with mass panic and high mortality from a new outbreak, not even the Supreme Court will defend your right to say NO to vaccines. You will be 100% owned by the state. If they own your body, then they also, by definition, own the product of your labor and can control your behavior without limits. SCOTUS serves no function other than to more tightly bind the chains around your wrists and ankles as they turn your body over to the state for endless medical experimentation.

And yes, SCOTUS also believes the government owns your children since they said nothing about affirming the rights of parents to reject medical experiments for children.

Get full details on this story in today’s Situation Update. The part about SCOTUS begins around minute 33.

Find a new podcast each day, along with special reports and emergency updates, at:

Download my free audiobooks — including Survival Nutrition, The Global Reset Survival Guide, and The Contagious Mind — at:

Also follow me on:








New York politicians push bill allowing governor to indefinitely detain the unvaccinated on a whim

Image: New York politicians push bill allowing governor to indefinitely detain the unvaccinated on a whim



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) When they reconvene on Jan. 5, 2022, the New York Senate and Assembly could pass a bill that would allow Gov. Kathy Hochul to detain “cases, contacts, carriers, or anyone suspected of presenting a ‘significant threat to public health'” – meaning the “unvaccinated.”

Bill A416 would allow Hochul near-unlimited power to whimsically target whomever she pleases for pretty much any reason at all, and have her targets hauled off to “Camp Covid” for cleansing and reeducation.

According to reports, the legislation is a “serious risk to the basic liberties of all Americans in the state of New York, including their right to choose whether or not to receive medical treatment and vaccinations related to thus far undetermined contagious diseases.”

In other words, it would not be limited just to the Fauci Flu. Any new disease or public health threat, whether real or imagined, could be used as cover to remove and detain individuals or groups of people through a single order.

All Hochul needs is the individual or group’s name along with “reasonably specific descriptions of the individuals or groups.” From there, the department is free to decide where to put the targets, including at a medical facility or some other facility that they “deem appropriate.”

“The language is purposefully vague,” writes Kay Smythe for The National Pulse.

If Bill A416 passes, any person in New York could be forced at gunpoint by the government to get vaccinated or take drugs

While Bill A416 states that no one shall be held for longer than 60 days at a time, there is a caveat in place to override that in the event of a court order.

“After 60 days, the court is allowed an additional 90 days to consider the detention of an individual, a cycle that can last indefinitely per the opinion of the department,” Smythe explains.

The bill goes on to state that any individual who has been “exposed to or infected by a contagious disease … complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination.”

The government of New York, in essence, would be allowed to detain and forcibly medicate anyone they wish, under the bill’s provisions. Even someone who is merely “potentially” a threat, as Hochul or some other bureaucrat defines the word “threat,” could be detained and force-vaccinated.

Hochul has already indicated that she is not a friend of health freedom. Immediately after being installed as Andrew Cuomo’s replacement, she announced that any state employee who is fired for refusing the jabs will not be eligible for unemployment insurance.

Now, Hochul is apparently salivating over the prospect of being able to wave her scepter and have unvaccinated New Yorkers forcibly detained, strapped down, injected with who even knows what, and held in a concentration camp for however long the system decides is necessary to eradicate a “disease.”

Even worse is the pre-crime elements to Bill A416, which would allow for a preemptive strike against someone believed to have the capacity to “pose a threat in the future, such as those refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination.”

An unvaccinated person could be completely healthy – healthier, in fact, than a vaccinated person – and yet be deemed a potential future threat by the department. Then that unvaccinated person could be hauled off to Camp Covid and possibly never released.

“There is no explicit reference to what types of contagious diseases qualify a person to be removed from public life, detained in a facility, and forced into medical treatment and vaccination,” Smythe further explained.

“Anyone can technically be held in isolation until they are deemed non-contagious, which would also raise questions over whether those carrying HIV / AIDS could be released back into society.”

More related news can be found at

Sources for this article include:

UPRISING: Australian MP Calls on Citizens to Revolt – Compares Leaders to Hitler and Stalin (Video)



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“The totalitarian path we are unquestionably on has never ended well.” – MP George Robert Christensen

Queensland MP George Robert Christensen has called on citizens to rise up against coronavirus lockdown measures and vaccination mandates. He compared governments promulgating such measures to totalitarian regimes responsible for the most horrific atrocities.

On Wednesday, Christensen said in parliament that Australian State Premiers are “drunk on power” and “trying to out tyrant each other”. He also noted that non-vaccinated Australians are increasingly “demonized, ostracized, and socially eradicated.”

No Justification

The MP explained that totalitarian regimes responsible for the most heinous atrocities of the Twentieth Century: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, didn’t get there overnight.

They used fear to control, excluded the “dirty” people (softly at first), justified the exclusion, moved to harder exclusions, and eventually eliminated people either socially, or physically.

Early last year, 94-year-old Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski gave a speech during the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the camp’s liberation. The Polish Holocaust survivor reminded the audience that the Holocaust didn’t’ start with death camps. Instead, it began with propaganda, scaremongering, scapegoating, and segregation.

In Twenty-First Century Australia, State Premiers are racing down that familiar path, setting up their own bio-security police states complete with medical apartheid,

Sadly, we have enabled it, refusing to rein them in and, worse, supplying the Australian Immunisation Register data that underpins this medical apartheid. Fear is a justification of choice for coercion and control, with non-vaccinated Australians increasingly demonised, ostracised and socially eradicated.

Just recently, the Australian military began forcibly throwing coronavirus-positive citizens and close contacts in quarantine camps.

Pandemic of the Unvaccinated Lies

The establishment claims that the virus is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but Christensen said there is no justification for such demonization.

He referred to a German study showing that 55 percent of symptomatic patients over 60 are fully “vaccinated”. In Gibraltar, where all 34,000 residents have been fully vaccinated, 60 new cases are registered daily.

Meanwhile, the Australian government is mandating the experiment mRNA shots, which has caused adverse effects in many people. Furthermore, they are forcing citizens to take a second shot even after they suffered an adverse event from the first.

Civil Disobedience

We are undoubtedly on the totalitarian path, and that never ends well, said the MP. “The solution is a rediscovery of human dignity, along with, and I don’t say this lightly — civil disobedience.”

Watch Liberal Party of Australia MP, George Robert Christensen impassioned speech:

Related RAIR stories you might be interested in:

Nazi Propaganda: State Media Blames Unvaccinated ‘For Thousands of Covid Deaths’ (Video)



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Holocaust didn’t’ start with death camps; it began with propaganda, scaremongering, scapegoating, segregation, and exclusion.

In a hateful tirade reminiscent of Hilter’s Propaganda Ministry, German journalist Sarah Frühauf attacked unvaccinated people and called for mandatory vaccinations. Furthermore, the State Funded Media (MDR) correspondent identified the unvaccinated as the sole culprits in the coronavirus crisis and blamed them for the current authoritarian measures and thousands of coronavirus deaths. 

However, even Germany’s chief virologist Christian Drosten denies the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” myth. Like Hitler’s nazi propaganda machine, Frühauf is exploiting ordinary Germans by encouraging them to be co-producers of a false reality.

Unvaccinated Responsible For Mass Murder

Germany’s dangerous propaganda against the unvaccinated seems to have reached a new level of escalation. In a 1:44 minute hate speech on prime time television, left-wing correspondent Sarah Frühauf first blamed the unvaxxed for destroying Christmas, keeping people from their families, and extending lockdowns for at least another year,

Thank you very much – to all those who have not been vaccinated. Thanks to you, there is a risk of next winter in lockdown – in many places again without Christmas markets, perhaps again without the Christmas holidays in the family circle.

Next, Frühauf blamed the unvaccinated for the economic destruction of business owners. She accused those refusing to take the jab of harming health care workers,

They are responsible for society being once again under pressure and doctors and health workers being forced to perform beyond their limits

The state media spox accused the unvaccinated of mass murder, claiming that they are responsible for the “thousands of lost lives during this wave of Corona.” Furthermore, “all those who refuse to get vaccinated have to live with the rebuke that they are to blame for the present situation,” stated Frühauf.

Unvaccinated Are The New Jews

Frühauf’s dangerous unscientific attacks are precisely how you divide society, and genocides happen. As previously reported at RAIR Foundation USA, it is dangerous to brand people (the unvaccinated) as scapegoats, sources of disease, or profiteers. Historically, there have been (and are) vast and conclusive examples of the genocidal playbook that all begin with the political and social dehumanization of the “offending” population. 

Early last year, 94-year-old Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski gave a speech during the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the camp’s liberation. The Polish Holocaust survivor reminded the audience that the Holocaust didn’t’ start with death camps. Instead, it began with propaganda, scaremongering, scapegoating, segregation, and exclusion. Then, it was an easy next step to strip further rights, dehumanize, and brutally extinguish that minority.

Backlash: Criminal Complaints For Sedition Filed

Germany’s only conservative party, the Alternative für Deutschland, sharply criticized Sarah Frühauf’s dangerous diatribe. The media policy spokesman for the AfD parliamentary group in Saxony-Anhalt, Tobias Rausch, criticized her sharply stating:  

With this inflammatory charge, the GEZ-financed broadcasters are contributing to the further division of society. If the incantatory individual opinion of an MDR employee is offered such a platform, a limit has been exceeded. Public broadcasters are obliged to report objectively and balanced manner; they are not mandated to exert or increase social pressure. The AfD condemns the increasing propaganda against unvaccinated people and especially calls on the public to report neutrally.

AfD’s Deputy Leader, Beatrix von Storch, filed a criminal complaint against Frühauf. The leader states that the state-employed journalist violated Section 130 of the country’s criminal code. Furthermore, her televised opinion “is full of incitement and decidedly suitable to disturb the public peace,” stated Storch.

Frühauf also accused those choosing not to take the experimental mRNA injection of causing suffering for health care professionals and are even indirectly portrayed as murderers, stated Storch. Furthermore, the statements of Mrs. Frühauf in her “opinion piece” attacked the dignity of the unvaccinated and caused them great harm. Storch explained she called on the public prosecutor’s office to take action. Furthermore, she demanded that those dividing society into vaccinated and unvaccinated must be stopped.

Many courageous citizens also brought criminal complaints against the tax-payed funded propagandist. More and more people across the world are fighting back against their regimes’ dangerous and discriminatory actions. Freedom fighters have taken to the streets, protesting at their places of work, and fighting in the courts to protect their freedoms.

Auschwitz survivor Turski implored people to learn from the past, remain and remain faithful to his Eleventh Commandment:

Never be a bystander. He then addressed his daughters and grandchildren, warning them to “defend the constitution, defend your rights, defend your democratic order, defend the rights of minorities” and above all, “thou shalt not be indifferent.” Turski explained, “if you become complacent, before you know it, some kind of Auschwitz will suddenly appear from nowhere and befall you and your descendants.

Video Transcript

Well, thanks a lot to all of you unvaccinated. Thanks to you, we’re threatened with another lockdown this winter. In many places Christmas markets were cancelled again.

Perhaps family Christmas gatherings will be too. The measures that were recently announced in Saxony and Bavaria are a slap in the face for everyone who showed their solidarity these last few months. 

Namely, those who got the vaccination. Without a doubt, the restrictions are necessary, but they wouldn’t have been necessary if more people had acted responsibly. 

All those who refuse to get vaccinated have to live with the rebuke that they are to blame for the present situation. 

They are responsible for society being once again under pressure and doctors and health workers being forced to perform beyond their limits. 

Shop and restaurant owners struggle to keep their livelihoods, again.

Above all, they should consider their own responsibility for the thousands of lost lives during this wave of Corona. The responsible politicians have wavered far too long and should have put more pressure on the unvaccinated much earlier.

Apparently they were afraid that the anger of the unvaccinated would affect the election results.

That was negligent, and that’s why it is the way it is. The wave is now unstoppable, but Germany needs to exit the endless loop of Corona.

Because, at some point, the vaccinated who have shown solidarity will no longer participate.

They don’t have any desire to continue to follow the anti-Corona restrictions.

Politicians need to provide them some incentive. A winter like this, can’t be repeated.


Our neighbors in Austria are leading by example with mandatory vaccination for everyone who is medically able to get one.

                                    Translation: Miss Piggy 

Holocaust Museum removes photo of Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It seems as if the whole world has agreed: nothing that could possibly offend Muslims can be displayed, no matter how historically important or relevant to the contemporary scene.

“The missing photo of Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem,” by Shalom Pollack, Arutz Sheva, November 27, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

I would like to introduce a notorious Nazi SS general, a leading Muslim cleric and the father of a nation – all in one.

This person is Haj Amin al Husseini.

Husseini was the powerful patriarch of the leading Arab clan in Palestine in the first half of the twentieth century. He used his political power and religious influence for his life’s motif – the murder of Jews.

In an attempt to “mainstream” the Mufti of Jerusalem ” the British appointed him to an official position of power and responsibility.It did not work. It only gave him the platform and prestige to pursue his passion of killing Jews.

This he accomplished on numerous occasions, most notably by instigating the barbaric Hebron massacre of dozens of Jewish families in 1929. (Note: in 1929, there was no Zionist “apartheid occupation”, no “occupied territories” nor “settlers”; just Jews of all ages living in Hebron and horriblly killed by their neighbors)

A Nazi sympathizer, he fled British controlled Palestine during the war. He led a Nazi coup in Irag where he instigated the bloody “Farhud” pogrom against the Jewish community of Iraq.

He then fled to Germany where he was made an honorary SS general by Himmler and proceeded to do all he could in helping the Hitler regime kill Jews. He addressed the Arab world by radio from Berlin winning huge support for the Nazis. He raised divisions of Muslim that fought in the Nazi army. One of their tasks was to guard so that Jews do not escape the trains to death camps.

Husseini intervened in a deal that would have saved a train load of Jewish children for a bribe. Husseini would not allow one Jewish child to escape the gas chambers.

Together with Himmler he visited the death camps and drew plans to build a “facility” in the Dotan valley in Samaria where the half million Jews of Palestine would be gassed as soon as Rommel defeated the British. Eichmann was quoted as saying: “I am a personal friend of the Grand Mufti. We have promised that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more.”

After the war, SS general Husseini found refuge in Syria from war crimes judgment. Wherever he appeared in the Arab world he was received as a hero and mentor. His Nazi credentials together with his clerical position were the calling card that opened every door in the Arab world.

Yasar Arafat called him “the father of the Palestinian people”. PA authority president Abbas repeated this accolade.

Yad Vashem, the world’s foremost Holocaust Museum and memorial had a large photo of Husseini with Hitler on one wall. Opposite was a photo of Jewish soldiers from Palestine volunteering in the British army in the “Jewish Brigade” The contrast was clear.

I say had, because when Yad Vashem was refurbished and expanded in 2005, the Hitler – Husseini photo did not make it into the new museum.

As a tour guide since 1980, I have visited the old museum numerous times and remember clearly how my tourists were shocked by the duo in the photo.

In the new museum, instead of the Husseini – Hitler photo there is a far smaller one of Husseini and Himmler, in a dark corner that no one sees. I finally located it.

When I wrote to Yad Vashem and asked why they removed the photo from the new museum, I was told that the new museum “concentrates on the victims and less on the perpetrators”. However just a few feet from the small Husseini – Himmler photo is an entire wall of perpetrators – the architects of the “Wannsee Conference” that drew up the plans for the Holocaust.

I asked a number of local official Yad Vashem guides about the photo. They either did not know of it or said it was political and they did not discuss it with visitors. They were uncomfortable with my inquiry.

I wondered if associating Palestinian Arabs with Nazis was no longer politically correct since the Oslo accords with Arafat in 1993….



FACT: ‘The Unvaccinated Are the New Jews’~Don’t Let the Left Tell You Otherwise (Video)



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Holocaust didn’t start with death camps. It began with propaganda, scaremongering, scapegoating, and segregation.

Thierry Baudet, leader of the Netherlands’ populist party, Forum-for-Democracy (FFD), caused outrage among the establishment when he compared his government’s discriminatory policies towards the unvaccinated to those of Jews during the Second World War.

In a social media post to Twitter on Sunday, Baudet stated, “The current situation can be compared with the 1930s and 1940s. The unvaccinated are the new Jews; the ignorant exclusions are the new Nazis and NSB [National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands] members. There, I said it.”

Baudet’s statements are in response to a newsletter from opinion pollster Maurice de Hond, in which he expressed concerns about the Cabinet’s proposal to ban all unvaccinated people from specific locations. 

De Hond, who is Jewish, recognizes the same pattern of slow, systematic exclusion of people that mimics “the experiences of my parents from a period that is the blackest page of our history.”

Predictably, the left immediately launched attacks against the popular leader. Outgoing Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Minister of Health Hugo de Jonge called Baudet’s statements “disgusting, totally inappropriate and very hurtful to many people.” Additionally, Sigrid Kaag, leader of the left-wing Democrats 66 party, commented on Twitter, “he seriously damages the authority and dignity of the Chamber. I feel shame about that.”

To further exemplify the staggering truth in Baudet’s statements, many called for his imprisonment. 

Dehumanizing the Unvaccinated

It is dangerous to qualify people (the unvaccinated) as scapegoats, sources of disease, or profiteers, explains the FvD party. Historically, there have been (and are) vast and conclusive examples of the genocidal playbook that all begin with the political and social dehumanization of the “offending” population. 

Baudet’s party detailed that leading up to and during WW2, ordinary Germans were so blinded by propaganda that they actually cheered the hunt for the Jews. They were so severely brainwashed they felt morally obligated to help facilitate the slow and miserable demise of innocent people and families. The parallels to today’s policies are shocking.

According to Hugo de Jonge, only vaccinated people have taken social responsibility. Unvaccinated people are “antisocial” and therefore deserve to be expelled from society. Further, anyone who allows themselves to be pricked does so selflessly “for another person.” Those who do not let themselves be pricked “only live for themselves.”

According to state propaganda, unvaccinated people kill the vaccinated by taking up hospital beds, preventing good vaccinated people from undergoing surgery.

Shocking Parallels

Six million Jews did not agree to die in gas chambers. It started with small, measured steps.

Baudet compared the systematic exclusion of the unvaccinated with the exclusion of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. Shockingly, there is much similarity in how the Jews were treated during the years leading up to War. There is also this similarity in the “measures” taken. As early as April 1, 1933, the German state organized a boycott of Jewish entrepreneurs and professionals. In September 1935, the state passed comprehensive and restrictive legislation on nationality and citizenship. Jews were placed outside the “German people’s community” with these laws.

In the Netherlands, it began when Jews were prohibited from working in the air protection service on July 1, 1940. This was followed by banning Jews from government service. Then Jews were no longer welcome at Amsterdam markets. In November, it was announced that Jewish civil servants would be suspended; they would later be fired on February 21, 1941. On January 7, Jews were forbidden to visit cinemas. A few days later, all Jews must register. Signs reading “Jews not wanted” appear in various public places.

Lockdown For Jews

Austria and the Netherlands have recently implemented lockdowns for only the unvaccinated. Similarly, in the past, the Netherlands only had lockdowns for Jews. Baudet’s FvD party detailed the measures that were taken against the Jews before WW2:

January 10, 1941: Compulsory registration in the Netherlands of all persons “wholly or largely of Jewish blood.”

March 12, 1941: Jewish students were no longer allowed to study at the university.  Jews were no longer allowed to have their own company. 

May 1: Jewish doctors were banned from treating non-Jews

April 1: Jews in Haarlem were no longer allowed to enter cafes, restaurants, cinemas, theatres, libraries, and swimming pools. 

May 31: Jews were forbidden to visit swimming pools and beaches. They were also no longer allowed to rent rooms in some seaside resorts or visit public places in those areas.

September 1: Jewish students were prohibited from attending regular schools and educational institutions.

September 15: Jews were forbidden to visit parks, zoos, cafes, restaurants, libraries, hotels, theatres, cinemas, and museums. Also, Jews were no longer allowed to travel or relocate without a permit. From this moment on, ‘Forbidden for Jews’ signs appeared in the streets.

October 20: The Jewish Council was obliged to register all Jews in the Netherlands. There was also a new regulation that restricted Jews from exercising certain professions.

On October 22: Jews were required to t leave non-Jewish associations and foundations. 

December 5: all non-Dutch Jews were required to report for ‘voluntary emigration.’ 

January 9: public education for Jews was banned on January

January 23, 1942: identification cards of Jews were marked with the letter ‘J.’ 

May 3: Introduction of the Jewish Star, effectively sealing the fate of Jews in the
The Netherlands.

June 5: there was a complete travel ban for Jews. 

June 12:  Jews were prohibited from shopping outside during certain times and were only allowed to enter a limited number of shops. They were also no longer allowed to practice sports. 

June 30: Curfew imposed. Jews were required to be home between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

July 6: Jews were no longer allowed to visit non-Jews.

The similarities to today’s unvaccinated people in the Netherlands and many countries worldwide are shocking. Laws are being changed solely to implement vaccine policies, putting unvaccinated people in the same terrifying position as Jews in 1930s Europe. The unvaccinated are already being fired in many countries, which the Netherlands Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, is also trying to implement as law. People without a vaccine pass, or “Green Passport” (as it is called in much of Europe), are no longer allowed to travel by public transport. In Canada, the unvaccinated are not even allowed to leave their country anymore. 

Austria tried imposing lockdown measures on about two million unvaccinated people. Now the state is mandating vaccinations for the entire population. Watch the following clips of Austrian Police officers monitoring compliance with the lockdown for the unvaccinated:

Auschwitz Did Not Fall From The Sky

Early last year, 94-year-old Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski gave a speech during the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the camp’s liberation. The Pole, who was imprisoned in the camp in 1944, had a warning: Recognize the signs. “Auschwitz didn’t appear from nowhere. So one could say, as we say in Polish: was not an implicit matter of course.”

The Nazi camp didn’t drop from the sky, he reminded his audience, but was the endpoint of a process that began with exclusion: from park benches, food stores, chorus’, swimming pools, and social clubs. Once they established a new reality of stigmatism, segregation, and exclusion, it was an easy next step to strip further rights, dehumanize, and brutally extinguish that minority.

But be careful, be careful, we are already beginning to become accustomed to thinking, that you can exclude someone, stigmatize someone, alienate someone. And slowly, step by step, day by day, that’s how people gradually become familiar with these things. Both the victims and the perpetrators and the witnesses, those we call bystanders, begin to become accustomed to the thoughts and ideas, that this minority that produced Einstein, Nelly Sachs, Heinrich Heine and the Mendelssohns is different, that they can be expelled from society, that they are foreign people, that they are people who spread germs, diseases and epidemics. That is terrible, and dangerous. That is the beginning of what can rapidly develop.

Turski, along with his family, was forced into the Lodz ghetto and later deported to Auschwitz, calling on people not to remain indifferent when people are discriminated against and “whenever any government violates already existing, common social contracts.”

The survivor implored people to remain faithful to his Eleventh Commandment: Never be a bystander. He then addressed his daughters and grandchildren, warning them to “defend the constitution, defend your rights, defend your democratic order, defend the rights of minorities” and above all, “thou shalt not be indifferent.” Turski explained, “if you become complacent, before you know it, some kind of Auschwitz will suddenly appear from nowhere and befall you and your descendants.”

Watch Marian Tursk’s powerful speech:

The Holocaust didn’t start with death camps. It began with propaganda, scaremongering, scapegoating, and segregation. Unfortunately, the comparisons to 1930s and 1940s Nazi Germany are valid. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Vera Sharav Videos: Vaccine Passports; Fascist Dictatorships

Vera Sharav Video: Vaccine Passports & Fascist Dictatorships

A Holocaust survivor sheds disturbing light on the dark forces behind the "Great Reset."

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

This new Glazov Gang episode features Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has been a lifelong advocate for human rights. She is the founder of Alliance for Human Research Protection.

Vera discusses Vaccine Passports & Fascist Dictatorships, shedding disturbing light on the dark forces behind the "Great Reset." 

Don’t miss it!

Free the Hero Locked Up for Telling the Truth About Afghanistan

Lt. Col. Scheller put his career and freedom on the line for the truth.


Rep Gohmert on Visiting LTC Stuart Scheller: We Are Not as Divided as They Think We Are


Over $2 million raised for Stuart Scheller who is jailed for criticizing Afghanistan withdrawal

A fundraiser for Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller has received more than $2 million from supporters to help fund his legal expenses after being jailed for repeatedly criticizing the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Scheller, 40, was arrested on Monday and jailed at the Camp Lejeune brig after he allegedly broke four military laws by refusing orders to stop posting videos critical of senior military officials on social media, Daily Mail reported on Saturday Oct. 2. The U.S. Marine is expected to make his first court appearance in North Carolina next week. The Pipe Hitter Foundation, founded by Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, started the fundraiser, which has received more than 26,000 donations and raised a total of $2.08 million. The money will fund legal expenses and helping Scheller’s wife and his three kids financially, and aid Scheller’s transition out of the military.

IN THE BRIG: Lt. Col. Stu Scheller Jr’s Parents On Son Being Poorly Treated; Military Injustice



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

[The David Horowitz Freedom Center is rallying support to free Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller who is being held as a political prisoner for demanding accountability for Afghanistan. Lt. Col. Scheller sacrificed his career and his freedom for truth and justice. Sign this petition to support this great American patriot and to hold Milley and Austin accountable.]

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Who will pay the price for Afghanistan?

Not Secretary of Defense Austin, General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not General McKenzie, who oversaw the disastrous retreat, or any of Biden’s other brass.

Instead the only man who has been locked up for the defeat in Afghanistan is a Marine Corps Lt. Colonel who made a video calling for accountability from the military leadership.

Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller committed the ultimate crime, he put his career on the line and called for the truth after the Kabul airport suicide bombing. Biden’s brass smeared him as crazy, they relieved him of duty, they threatened him, called him a spy, and locked him up. The Pentagon careerists are desperately terrified of a brave man who is willing to put everything on the line.

Our petition at the David Horowitz Freedom Center calls for action to free Scheller who is “being held as a political prisoner for speaking the truth about the U.S. military’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” The only man behind bars over Afghanistan is there for telling the truth.

It all began over a month ago when he posted a video declaring, "I have been fighting for 17 years. I am willing to throw it all away to say to my senior leaders, I demand accountability."

The original video has since been seen 1.5 million times on Facebook and LinkedIn.

The cronies of Biden’s brass accused Scheller of being mentally unstable. And then, just in time for congressional hearings on the defeat in Afghanistan, they tried to silence him.

Scheller, not Milley or McKenzie, was relieved of duty. He was ordered to "refrain from posting any and all material, in any form without exception, to any social media" and "prohibited from communicating through third parties or proxies.”

Milley had done interviews for anti-Trump books and woke officers had bashed Republicans and promoted Black Lives Matter on Facebook and Twitter. But only Scheller was silenced.

Except that Scheller chose to go to jail instead.

"I believe in love. I believe in America. I believe in strength. I believe in honesty. I believe I am ready to go to jail based on these beliefs," he began his reply and concluded with, "Col Emmel please have the MPs waiting for me at 0800 on Monday.  I’m ready for jail."

Since then, Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller has been in the brig at Camp Lejeune.

After subjecting him to a psychiatric evaluation and repeatedly accusing him of being mentally ill, the latest phase of their smear campaign alleges that, “Marine Corps officials say they consider him a flight risk and believe China may intend to use his comments as propaganda.”

Scheller had plenty of time to run away if he wanted to. If he had just stopped posting criticism of Biden’s brass on social media, he wouldn’t have been locked up to begin with. And while Milley could assure Communist China that he would tip them off about any attack, it’s Scheller who’s falsely accused of helping China based on “propaganda” that doesn’t even actually exist.

That’s how desperate Biden’s brass are to silence Lt. Col. Scheller.

After trying and failing to gag him, they’ve resorted to silencing this great patriot by locking him up as a political prisoner which leaves them free to throw any dirt they can come up with.

And hope that some of it sticks.

What are they so afraid of? The gag order was sent to Scheller in late August. The various congressional hearings into the Afghanistan defeat, public and private, open and secret, were scheduled for September. Locking him up was one way that Austin, Milley, McKenzie, against whom Scheller was trying to proffer dereliction of duty charges, could silence the Lt. Col. It allowed the political generals and bosses to maintain the narrative they were trying to sell.

That makes Lt. Col. Scheller a political prisoner.

The Pipe Hitter Foundation, which is working for Scheller’s defense, warned that, “We have just received word that the Military is making the IRO Hearing CLOSED to the public - and possibly including Members of Congress who were planning to attend in person & telephonically.”

Once again every effort is being made to silence and suppress Lt. Col. Scheller.

That’s why the David Horowitz Freedom Center is working to bring attention to this outrage. We will not allow Biden’s brass to silence this brave man in its own political echo chamber.

Our petition to free Lt. Col. Scheller declares that, “While Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin delivered testimony to Congress meant to obfuscate their gross incompetence in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Scheller has performed a patriotic duty by publicizing the truth. His incarceration in a military brig is an attempt to hold the truth hostage, and intimidate others.”

The issue at stake is accountability.

Biden, Austin, Milley, and the rest of the masters of the Afghanistan disaster are hoping to move on. They want to watch the deaths, the betrayals, and the empowered terrorists disappear into the rearview mirror as they pivot to their political schemes in this country. And anyone who stands in their way, who calls for accountability for the elites, is run over and ground under.

“The everyday American is held to a much higher standard than the people leading the critical organizations within the government,” Scheller wrote. And Biden’s brass are proving his point.

Who will pay the price for Afghanistan?

If Biden, Milley, and Austin have their way, only Scheller and other critics will pay the price.

“It’s the system that’s going to break. Not me,” Lt. Col. Scheller wrote before he was locked up.

It’s a courageous message that many political prisoners have sent out. But not all of them have prevailed. Lt. Col. Scheller and the many career military men who know what is happening, need our support. That’s why the Freedom Center is launching its campaign calling for an end to the plot to silence Scheller and other military whistleblowers.

Americans deserve the truth and a patriot like Lt. Col. Scheller deserves to be heard.

While Biden has armed the terrorists, he has disarmed Americans. Thousands of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS-K were freed at Bagram Air Base, but Scheller has been locked away.

Lt. Col. Scheller put his career and his freedom on the line to call for accountability.

It is our duty to stand by him, to demand his freedom, and to support his call for consequences.

Scheller does not belong in prison, Milley and the rest of Biden’s brass belong there. The truth must be heard and justice must prevail. And that won’t happen if we remain silent.

Who will pay the price for Afghanistan? It will either be Scheller or Milley. That’s up to us.

Yellow star-style wristbands now being pushed on unvaccinated students as universities declare unvaxxed humans to be unclean, inferior sub-humans

Image: Yellow star-style wristbands now being pushed on unvaccinated students as universities declare unvaxxed humans to be unclean, inferior sub-humans



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) To help identify which concentration camp prisoners are which, the University of Bath in Great Britain is marking students with differently colored wristbands based on their Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” status.

According to reports, “unvaccinated” first-year students at Bath are being given a yellow star-style wristband indicating that they refused to take any Chinese Virus injections. Their fully injected counterparts, meanwhile, are being given another type of wristband showing their compliance.

“Freshers have been given wristbands to signal whether they are vaccinated against coronavirus amid anger at emerging ‘two-tier’ university campuses,” a prominent U.K. media outlet reported.

“Students arriving this week at the University of Bath have been given a different coloured wristband on club nights if they can prove in advance (that) they are double jabbed, or have Covid-19 immunity.”

Bath students who are unable to prove that they got injected are also being placed in different queues than the injected. This is medical apartheid and fascism, just to be clear.

Even though the British government was barred from forcing countrymen to take the jabs against their will because doing this would be discriminatory and ethically unsound, academia has decided to go full-fledged tyrannical. (RELATED: New York City is similarly waging economic war against the unvaccinated.)

Academic fascists forcing unvaccinated students into isolation and misery

At The University of Sheffield, freshmen students are being told that they must present a “covid pass” in order to attend student events and union nights out. Those who refuse will basically not have any social life on campus.

One unvaccinated student reported that he not only feels “excluded” from everything that goes on at Sheffield, but also has to face being “shamed in front of friends” for his non-compliance.

“We are worried that some universities appear to have implemented what amounts to a vaccine passport via stealth,” said Arabella Skinner, the director of a parents group called UsForThem.

“The idea of making students display their private medical information in such a public way is unacceptable. This echoes examples of discrimination we have seen in schools through the pandemic and raises concerns of a two-tier system for students to access education.”

Medical discrimination on campus is not just a U.K. problem. It is also happening in the United States, including off campus where snitches are reporting students who are seen not wearing a mask while out in public.

Creating a new two-tiered society that discriminates against non-Branch Covidians is a tactic that has been used all throughout history to divide and conquer. Tyrants like Joseph Stalin used it to eventually massacre millions of people, and we are once again seeing it unfold as part of the plandemic.

Some are fighting against it, but far too many are going along with it out of convenience or apathy. Things are still not bad enough, apparently, for any unified front to take a stand against it – and many fear that by the time enough people wake up, it will already be far too late.

“I hope the smart students drop out and find better use of their time elsewhere,” wrote one commenter at “Trade schools are better anyway. They lack the Marxist brainwashing and you can learn a useful skill in a year.”

Another quoted Ecclesiastes 1:9, which reads:

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

“Coming fast now the horrors of the past!” this same commenter added.

As Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) fascism and apartheid grows, we will keep you informed of the latest at

Sources for this article include:

D.C. officials begin scapegoating the unvaccinated, claiming they’re more dangerous than terrorists

Image: D.C. officials begin scapegoating the unvaccinated, claiming they’re more dangerous than terrorists



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) In lockstep with fake “president” Joe Biden’s ongoing efforts to inject every last American with a Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine,” officials in the District of Columbia are doing their part to try to get more needles into arms by roving local neighborhoods in search for the “unvaccinated.”

Elissa Silverman, a D.C. Council Member, spoke at a recent meeting about how she is personally very upset about the fact that not everyone in the area has agreed to roll up their sleeves for an “Operation Warp Speed” shot.

“I want to understand our city’s strategy regarding the unvaccinated because that’s, like, the big deal here,” Silverman whined. “If I’m looking at the data correctly, almost all of our unvaccinated residents 12 and older are insured by Medicaid. That’s like the entire universe.”

Because Silverman feels as though everyone should be forced to get injected against their will – this is also known as medical fascism – she is calling on D.C. officials who are higher up on the food chain than herself to take swift and immediate action to get everyone jabbed.

Another council member by the name of Mary Cheh further complained about how she witnessed students at Wilson High School sitting close to one another at lunch – gasp! These same students were also not wearing face masks, which upset Cheh even more.

To try to get their way, these two women are attempting to launch a crusade against the unvaccinated and other “non-compliant” people, including public school students who refuse to wear a mask and stay socially distanced from one another at all times.

They are joined by Patrick Ashley of D.C. Health, who announced that his department has unleashed an “outreach program” that involves going door to door to get more needles into arms.

“And as a reminder, we knock on doors until we actually get someone to talk to us,” Ashley announced. “And so, they’ll go back to a house four or five, six times, if necessary, multiple times of the day.”

To the Branch Covidians, what you do with your body is THEIR choice

Unlike the two women, Ashley stated that he agrees with the Constitution that Americans have the freedom and liberty to reject Fauci Flu shots if they so choose, which really upset Silverman.

“The president is saying it’s not a choice anymore!” Silverman interrupted and shouted at Ashley as he was stating that Wuhan Flu shots are “a choice of theirs to make.”

“The biggest threat to our city right now” is unvaccinated residents, Silverman further bellowed in a manner similar to Veruca Salt from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory:”

Needless to say, Silverman is a “bad egg.” Until she gets put in her place, however, Silverman will more than like continue to try to impose her Cult of Covidism religious beliefs on others by making other people’s bodies her choice.

Silverman brought up the recent move by the Los Angeles Board of Education that aims to force all public school students 12 years of age and older to be medically raped with Trump Vaccines as an example for D.C. public schools to follow.

Ashley responded to Silverman with a bit more dignity than she showed him by saying that he looks forward to any “other suggestions” she might have for how to “make more strides in those communities” where compliance with Operation Warp Speed is currently lacking.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, meanwhile, has decided to try to force all government employees in the district to take a Fauci Shot or three.

More related news about the Branch Covidians and their obsession with trying to medically rape America can be found at

Sources for this article include:

What If We Had Fought World War II the Way We’ve Fought Jihadis?



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Imagine what the world might be like today if World War II had been fought the way the defense against the global jihad has been.

Imagine it is December 7, 1961, the twentieth anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, and people have grown weary of the war. President Adlai E. Stevenson (who swept into office promising a return to normal after the tumultuous Eisenhower years) gives what was then something new: a nationally televised address. He looks determinedly into the cameras and says:

My fellow Americans: On this day, as we remember the 2,403 lives taken from us at Pearl Harbor on this fateful day twenty years ago, I am reminded of the fundamental obligation of a President, which is to defend and protect America — not against threats of 1941, but against the threats of 1961 and tomorrow.

Yes, I confess it, I’ve cast poor Adlai here as something of a proto-Biden, for it was the current occupant of the Oval Office who recently said: “The fundamental obligation of a President, in my opinion, is to defend and protect America — not against threats of 2001, but against the threats of 2021 and tomorrow.”

The implication was clear. Jihad? Old Joe wants to say goodbye to all that. The threat of 2021, as he and members of his administration have made clear numerous times, comes from “white supremacists.” Now, you’re forgiven if you haven’t noticed “white supremacists” committing terror attacks around the country (if they did, what would they shout? “Robert Byrd Is Great”?). By “white supremacists,” Biden’s handlers mean the supportive environment that nourished the January 6 “insurrectionists” who weren’t insurrectionists; that is, ordinary, law-abiding Americans who supported Trump over Biden and take a dim view of the nose dive America has taken since Old Joe took office.

Related: ‘We Have Won’: Fort Hood Jihad Murderer Congratulates Taliban

So: What if the America of 1961 were dealing with a situation similar to that of America today. Twenty years after a massive attack and still embroiled in a conflict with those who hold the same ideology as the attackers, but with leadership that is anxious to pretend that conflict is over and that a different one is upon us? The fictional President Stevenson might indulge himself with a victory lap:

As Nazi rule has returned to Berlin, I can’t say that I’m pleased as they parade around with $85 billion in American military hardware, or with the fact that Americans are still stranded in Berlin, but I must thank them for the fact that they have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and professional in our dealings with them.

Above all, twenty years into this fight, I am proud we have not given in to the temptation to demonize and stigmatize entire nations for the deeds of a few extremists. We have not succumbed to Germanophobia or Nipponophobia. The Germans are not our enemies. The Japanese are not our enemies. We are fighting against a tiny minority that holds to extremist ideologies, ideologies which have unfortunately hijacked the noble traditions of the Shinto religion in Japan and National Socialism in Germany. And we will prevail. But we will prevail hand-in-hand with the Japanese and German moderates who have been the first and most numerous victims of these extremists.

That’s why my administration is in consultations with representatives of the Council on Japanese-American Relations and the Nazi Poverty Law Center, and I have issued a proclamation declaring this twentieth anniversary of that terrible day a Day of Solidarity Against Germanophobia and Nipponophobia. We’ve mourned the loss of innocents on our battlefields in Wyoming and West Virginia, but groups like the Shinto and Nazi extremists know that they will never be able to defeat a nation as great and as strong as America. They’ve tried to stoke enough fear among us that we turn on each other and that we change who we are and how we live. And that’s why it is so important today that we reaffirm our character as a nation, by rejecting all hate and fear. That’s why I’m announcing today a significant increase in humanitarian aid to both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan…

I must apologize to Adlai Stevenson for putting this nonsense into his mouth. Democrats of his day were not quite so spectacularly insane as the current variety. But it really isn’t all that far off the mark. The official response of the United States to 9/11 has been more concerned about avoiding “Islamophobia” than facing the ideological roots of jihad activity realistically. Biden’s handlers really are planning to send aid to the Taliban, even after gifting them with billions in American military hardware.

Wrong analyses make for failed policies, and after thousands of American lives have been lost, and trillions of American dollars have been spent, the nation has essentially nothing to show for all this expenditure but a sharp and continuing loss of American power and prestige. The jihadis who struck the U.S. on September 11, 2001, have made such immense advances since then not because they are strong, or clever, or capable, but because we are weak, short-sighted, and resolute not in fighting them but in maintaining our denial about who they are and what they want, to the extent that we have taken numerous steps not to stop them, but actually to enable them to achieve their goals.

Twenty years after 9/11, the free West is dug in: wholeheartedly committed to denial, willful ignorance, and policies that are self-defeating to the point of suicidal. In light of that, the wonder is not that we are still facing a threat from the people who hit us twenty years ago, but that we have held out so long. Unless the political landscape changes considerably and this denial is decisively rejected and discarded, darker, much darker, days are coming.

1 2