Social Media

In the weeks leading up to the Republican National Convention, the Trump campaign has found itself grappling with an unexpected internal threat from within its own ranks. This issue emerged most prominently during a recent gathering of Arizona delegates in a Phoenix suburb. What was meant to be a routine meeting for delegates to familiarize themselves with their responsibilities instead became the setting for a clandestine plot aimed at disrupting Donald Trump’s nomination. At this meeting, a group of delegates identifying as staunch "America First" supporters proposed a secret plan to break free from their pledge to support Trump. Unlike previous attempts to thwart Trump by "Never Trumpers," this effort originated from the far-right faction within his base. According to people present at the meeting and others briefed on it, these delegates discussed using covert signals, such as wearing matching black jackets, to identify one another. The precise aim of this plot remains ambiguous. Some speculate it could be an effort to block a vice-presidential pick deemed undesirable by the far-right faction. Others suggest the goal might be to position former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as a substitute nominee if Trump were to face incarceration. Among the far-right, there is a growing suspicion that Trump has surrounded himself with advisers loyal to the so-called "deep state," fueling these internal machinations. The Trump campaign, perceiving this scheme as an "existential threat," acted swiftly to replace the dissenting delegates. A campaign staffer involved in addressing the situation described it to some Republicans as the "only process that would prevent Trump from being the nominee." The urgency and seriousness with which the campaign addressed this issue underscore the potential impact such an internal revolt could have on the convention. This episode in Arizona has broader implications for the upcoming convention in Milwaukee, where around 5,000 delegates and alternates are expected to participate. Many of these delegates are influenced by the same falsehoods and baseless accusations that animate much of Trump’s supporter base. The incident has sparked memories of the 2016 Republican convention, which briefly descended into chaos during an attempt by Trump’s opponents to derail his nomination. Suspicions have also spread among Trump supporters that covert saboteurs might have infiltrated their ranks. At the Georgia GOP convention in May, for instance, a would-be delegate withdrew after being accused of lobbying for Dominion Voting Systems, a company frequently targeted by false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Intra-party conflicts have become a significant issue within the Republican Party. Illinois Republican Party Chairman Don Tracy recently resigned, lamenting that "we have Republicans who would rather fight other Republicans than engage in the harder work of defeating incumbent Democrats by convincing swing voters to vote Republican." This sentiment highlights the internal struggles that have distracted the party from its broader electoral goals. The financial motivations behind these internal conflicts cannot be overlooked. Some Republicans involved in these discussions believe that certain activists profit from the turmoil surrounding election integrity claims. One Republican suggested that these activists "really don’t want us to win" and instead "make money when we lose." The specific plot in Arizona was led by Shelby Busch, chair of the state delegation and founder of the We the People AZ Alliance. This group has raised nearly $1 million and is closely aligned with Senate candidate Kari Lake, funded largely by entities linked to prominent election deniers like Flynn and former Overstock.com executive Patrick Byrne. Byrne recently suggested on social media that Trump’s advisers are deep-state operatives and that "his VP needs to be a General," tagging Flynn’s profile in the post. The June meeting in Arizona included a presentation by delegate Joe Neglia, detailing a maneuver to suspend the convention’s rules and take control of the proceedings from the floor. When the Trump campaign learned of this plan, they collaborated with local party officials to recruit new delegates to replace those involved in the plot. The campaign’s memo described the leaders of this group as being engaged in a "multi-state conspiracy to suspend the rules at the national convention." Despite the campaign’s efforts to replace the dissenting delegates, Busch’s group responded by accusing those challenging them of being part of an "anti-Trump establishment group." They argued that the challenge was an attempt to sabotage Trump from within his own campaign and the Republican National Committee. In a statement, Busch’s group claimed that the Arizona grassroots patriots overwhelmingly supported their delegation because of their unwavering support for Trump, even if he were to be incarcerated. Ultimately, an agreement was reached between Busch’s bloc and the Trump campaign. Neglia agreed to step aside, the other delegates could remain, and there would be no revolt on the convention floor. While this resolution defused the immediate threat, it left some volunteer replacements feeling jilted. These volunteers had stepped up to support the campaign, only to be cast aside after the agreement was reached. Campaign political director James Blair attempted to smooth things over by publicly thanking the replacements for their service and praising their loyalty to Trump. He emphasized that the convention should remain focused on celebrating Trump’s nomination, warning against any distractions that could arise from internal conflicts. "It’s not just a question of loyal Trump support, it’s willingness to not do anything that could distract from the historic nomination and celebration of President Trump, which is a four-day commercial," a campaign official said. In the end, the Arizona Republican Party chair had to step in to manage the internal discord among the delegation. "I’m closing the thread," the chair posted in a private chat, signaling the need to focus on unity and function as a team. Credit: Wasgington Post 2024-06-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

David DePape, the man convicted of attacking Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now faces an additional conviction for aggravated kidnapping in a state court. DePape, already sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for the 2022 attack, could potentially spend the rest of his life behind bars following this new conviction. Last month, a federal judge handed DePape a 30-year sentence for the brutal assault on Paul Pelosi. However, the legal proceedings against him did not end there. On Friday, a San Francisco jury found DePape guilty of multiple charges including first-degree burglary, false imprisonment of an elder, threatening a family member of a public official, and aggravated kidnapping. During the state trial, DePape's public defender, Adam Lipson, admitted his client's guilt for three of the charges but contested the accusations of threatening a family member of a public official and aggravated kidnapping. These charges were introduced by prosecutors in late May as DePape's federal trial was concluding. Despite Lipson's arguments, the jury convicted DePape on all counts. DePape's federal conviction included charges of assaulting a federal official’s family member and attempting to kidnap a federal official. On May 28, he was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison after a resentencing hearing prompted by judicial error. Following his imprisonment, DePape is likely to be deported to Canada. Lipson argued that the state trial represented double jeopardy, given that the criminal acts were connected to the same incident as the federal conviction. Although the charges were not identical, Lipson maintained that the cases were intrinsically linked. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman agreed to an extent, dismissing state charges of attempted murder, elder abuse, and assault with a deadly weapon. This decision was upheld on appeal by another judge. During closing arguments, Lipson emphasized that prosecutors failed to prove DePape's intent to kidnap Paul Pelosi with the goal of obtaining money or something valuable, which is a critical element of the charge. Prosecutors, however, argued that the valuable item DePape sought was a video of Nancy Pelosi confessing to alleged crimes, which he intended to disseminate online. Assistant District Attorney Phoebe Maffei countered Lipson’s arguments by pointing out that DePape had told a detective and testified in federal court about his plan to create and distribute such a video. "There is inherent value in a video of the Speaker of the House confessing to crimes in her own home," Maffei stated. The attack on Paul Pelosi, captured on police body camera footage just days before the 2022 midterm elections, sent shockwaves through the political landscape. Paul Pelosi, 82 at the time, sustained two head injuries, including a skull fracture that required surgical repair with plates and screws. He also suffered injuries to his right arm and hand. Maffei described the attack as part of a meticulously planned "reign of terror" orchestrated by DePape. "David DePape broke into the home of an 82-year-old man while he slept, entered his bedroom, held him hostage with a hammer, threatened him, threatened his wife, and attempted to kill him," she said. DePape had admitted during his federal trial that he intended to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage, interrogate her on video, and "break her kneecaps" if she did not confess to what he believed were lies about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. Lipson, in his closing arguments, portrayed DePape as a man who had become isolated and consumed by propaganda and conspiracy theories. This narrative was complicated by recent events involving DePape's former partner, Gypsy Taub, who was expelled from the public gallery and the second floor of the San Francisco courthouse for attempting to tamper with the jury. Taub had distributed materials promoting conspiracy theories outside the courtroom and in a nearby bathroom. Judge Dorfman accused Taub of attempting to corruptly influence jury members, leading to her removal from the court by bailiffs. Taub, a known activist in the Bay Area, was identified by DePape’s federal public defender as someone who had exposed DePape to extreme beliefs. DePape’s twin sister, Joanne Robinson, also wrote to the federal judge seeking leniency, describing how Taub had isolated DePape from his family and inflicted significant psychological damage on him. Credit: Politico 2024-06-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a climate reminiscent of the period leading up to the 9/11 attacks, the United States once again faces significant terrorist threats. Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, among other senior officials, has been vocal about the rising dangers. His warnings are strikingly similar to those issued by former CIA Director George Tenet, who persistently sounded the alarm about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda before the devastating attacks on September 11, 2001. Wray has consistently highlighted an increasingly dangerous environment, exacerbated by the recent attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7. He has publicly emphasized the vulnerabilities at the United States’ southern border, where thousands of individuals cross undetected each week. This concern reflects the broader issue of foreign terrorists potentially exploiting any entry point into the country. The seriousness of the current threat landscape is underscored by the statements from other high-ranking officials. General Erik Kurilla of CENTCOM has pointed out the alarming capabilities of various terrorist groups, including ISIS, al Qaeda, and particularly ISIS-K, the ISIS affiliate operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kurilla has warned that ISIS-K could launch an operation against U.S. or Western interests with little to no warning. Additionally, Christine Abizaid, the outgoing Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has described the global threat environment as significantly elevated. These concerns are not just theoretical. Recent successful and thwarted attacks around the world indicate a growing danger. For instance, ISIS-K has carried out deadly attacks in Iran and Russia, illustrating its capability to inflict substantial harm. In the United States, the FBI has thwarted several plots, including a significant plan to attack critical infrastructure last fall. This highlights the persistent threat from both foreign and domestic terrorists. Wray has publicly categorized threats into three main areas: international terrorism, domestic terrorism, and state-sponsored terrorism. All these categories are simultaneously elevated, posing a complex and multifaceted danger. He has specifically pointed to Iran as a potential state sponsor of terrorism, noting that Tehran continues to plot against high-ranking U.S. officials in retaliation for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. Although these plans have been unsuccessful so far, the risk remains high. Moreover, Wray has raised concerns about security vulnerabilities at the U.S. southern border. He has warned that foreign terrorists could exploit this entry point, drawing attention to specific smuggling networks with ties to ISIS. This scenario underscores the importance of robust border security measures to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. Given the alarming rise in threats, the U.S. administration must adopt a proactive approach to counterterrorism. This involves drawing lessons from past successes and failures. For instance, President Bill Clinton’s response to the millennium-era threats in 1999 offers valuable insights. Back then, U.S. intelligence agencies collected information suggesting that al Qaeda was preparing to launch multiple attacks. Although the exact targets and methods were unclear, Clinton ordered a comprehensive and aggressive response. This included a series of operations in 53 countries, targeting 38 different terrorist cells, resulting in numerous detentions and disrupted plots. One of the most notable successes from this period was the prevention of a planned attack on Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999. Alert immigration officers at the U.S.-Canadian border arrested al Qaeda operative Ahmed Ressam, who was carrying 100 pounds of high explosives and materials for multiple detonators. This incident demonstrates the effectiveness of heightened vigilance and swift action in preventing terrorist attacks. For the current administration, a similar comprehensive campaign is essential. This begins with the intelligence and security community providing clear and consistent information about the threats. While Wray and Kurilla have been vocal, other officials need to be equally transparent. Congressional intelligence committees should hold unclassified hearings with the directors of national intelligence agencies to offer their candid assessments. This will help policymakers and the public understand the gravity of the threats and the necessary responses. Intelligence agencies should also reexamine previously collected information related to terrorism. Revisiting earlier reports can reveal new insights or uncover overlooked details, which might be crucial in identifying and thwarting potential plots. This approach was undertaken by the CIA in the summer of 2001, although it did not prevent the 9/11 attacks, it did highlight valuable information that had been previously missed. Additionally, the U.S. must take steps to address the vulnerabilities at its borders. President Biden’s recent executive order to restrict asylum processing is a step in the right direction, but further measures are needed to ensure that terrorists do not exploit the overwhelmed southern border. This may include the use of national emergency authorities to enhance border security and limit the entry of potential terrorists. Preventive action must also extend beyond U.S. borders. Given the immediate threat posed by ISIS-K, the U.S. may need to consider unprecedented measures, such as limited cooperation with the Taliban. Although the idea of working with the Taliban is controversial, the group is also an adversary of ISIS-K. Intelligence exchanges, where the U.S. provides information about possible ISIS-K targets in Afghanistan in return for insights from the Taliban about the group’s capabilities and plans, could be mutually beneficial. This approach should also extend to Pakistan, where ISIS-K operates as well. Collaborative efforts to neutralize the group’s capabilities can significantly reduce the threat it poses. Such measures require careful coordination and trust-building but are necessary to prevent potential attacks on U.S. interests. While these steps are challenging, especially in an election year, the threat of terrorism cannot be ignored. Terrorist groups do not respect political calendars and can strike without warning. Over the past two decades, the efforts of thousands of Americans in the military and intelligence communities have prevented another major attack like 9/11. However, the work is far from over. Policymakers must rise to the challenge to protect the U.S. homeland from an ever-present and evolving terrorist threat. In conclusion, the current warnings from FBI Director Christopher Wray and other officials indicate a serious threat of a terrorist attack in the coming months. The administration must adopt a comprehensive and proactive approach to counterterrorism, drawing on lessons from the past and taking decisive action to prevent potential attacks. This involves enhancing intelligence efforts, securing borders, and addressing threats overseas. The stakes are high, and complacency is a greater risk than alarmism. Credit: Foreign Affairs 2024-06-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

An off topic post has been removed, the topic here is: Scotland Fans Stir Controversy Mock Death of Late Queen

An extremely disrespectful troll post removed @Neeranam carry on like that and it will not only be posts removed. Additional history lesson posts removed

Questionable source and off topic web link removed. Contravening our Community Standards.

Unatributed trolling meme removed along with comment on moderation by usual suspect

A post contravening our community standards has been removed along with a comment on moderation @Neeranam. The topic here is: Al Jazeera’s Terrorist Ties and the Controversy Over Its Operations

A post contravening our community standards has been removed. The topic here is: Open Letter: They Turned into Monsters

New topic Al Jazeera’s Terrorist Ties and the Controversy Over Its Operations

In response to the ongoing violence in Gaza, a group of nearly 70 Democratic senators and representatives have called on Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to create pathways for Palestinian refugees to enter the United States. This initiative aims to help Palestinians, particularly those with U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives, escape the dire conditions in Gaza. The letter, sent to Blinken and Mayorkas on Thursday, was led by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.). It highlights the urgency of granting a priority-2 (P-2) designation to Palestinians affected by the conflict. This designation would provide them special access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, facilitating their resettlement based on their specific circumstances and needs. "Since the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza, many congressional offices have received distressing requests for assistance from constituents desperately seeking to reunite with their loved ones," the letter states. The lawmakers expressed appreciation for the Biden administration's efforts to evacuate American citizens from Gaza but emphasized that more needs to be done for those with familial ties to the U.S. who remain in peril. Durbin underscored the importance of the P-2 designation, saying, "By granting a P-2 designation for refugee processing for certain Palestinians, the United States will be giving hope to Americans with relatives in Gaza who have strong ties to our nation but remain stranded in life-threatening conditions." The ongoing war, which began over eight months ago following a Hamas attack on southern Israel that resulted in over 1,200 deaths and 250 captives, has led to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In light of these events, the White House is reportedly considering admitting a limited number of Palestinians with U.S.-based families as refugees, marking a significant shift in the U.S.'s refugee policy. Historically, the U.S. has resettled few Palestinians, with fewer than 600 among the over 400,000 refugees admitted in the past decade. Efforts are underway to facilitate the safe passage of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and their immediate families from Gaza. The State Department, working with Egypt and Israel, has assisted over 1,800 individuals in leaving Gaza through the Rafah crossing into Egypt. Earlier this year, President Biden directed Blinken and Mayorkas to defer the removal of certain Palestinians currently living in the U.S. for 18 months in response to the conflict. The lawmakers emphasized that Palestinian refugees would need to meet specific eligibility criteria, undergo interviews with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, provide biometric data, and pass required medical and security screenings. The Democrats highlighted the refugee program as a crucial tool for the U.S. to de-escalate international conflicts and support regional stability. A spokesperson for Homeland Security confirmed that the agency responds to congressional inquiries through official channels, while a State Department spokesperson expressed concern over the famine in Gaza and stressed the need for safe distribution of aid and protection for humanitarian workers. As the situation in Gaza remains dire, the call for opening pathways for Palestinian refugees reflects a growing recognition of the humanitarian imperative to provide relief and reunite families separated by conflict. Credit: Hill 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Two men have been charged with the horrific murder of a 12-year-old Texas girl. Jocelyn Nungaray's body was found floating in a creek near her Houston home on Monday. Johan Jose Rangel Martinez, 21, and Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, 26, have now been charged with capital murder following a manhunt for the suspects. Houston PD explained that the murder of anyone aged under 15 automatically results in a capital murder charge. They previously suggested the youngster had also been raped and sent off a sexual assault kit to obtain further evidence. Officials are also working with Homeland Security Officials to see whether Martinez and Ramos are illegal immigrants. The medical examiner confirmed that Jocelyn died by strangulation. Police issued images of two persons of interest seen with the pre teen hours before her death after she had snuck out of her home at around 10pm. Officers said the suspects, who lived in the same block as the girl, bumped into Jocelyn and walked with her to a convenience store. She called her 13-year-old boyfriend from the convenience store at around midnight that night. He reported hearing her talking to two adults, Houston Mayor John Whitmire announced at a news conference Tuesday. Her grieving mother, Alexis Nungary, is now struggling to process what has happened. 'It's like it's not real,' she told Click2Houston. She said she does not believe she knows the two men Jocelyn was seen with at the convenience store, whom the Houston Police Department have identified as 'persons of interest in the case.' But Alexis says she suspects they either live in the apartment complex or may have walked to the store from a nearby state park. 'I want karma to hit them, I'm angry,' Alexis added. 'They took advantage of her. 'She's so young, she's 12. I want justice. I want whoever has seen them to please call police. They took my baby away.' Credit: Daily Mail 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer stated that Jeremy Corbyn would have made a better prime minister than Boris Johnson. During a special BBC Question Time programme, Starmer faced tough questions about his past support for Corbyn, whom he succeeded as Labour leader. Although initially reluctant to repeat his 2019 remark that Corbyn would have been a "great" prime minister, Starmer eventually conceded, "He would be a better prime minister… look what we got, Boris Johnson, a man who made massive promises, didn’t keep them, and then had to leave parliament in disgrace." This statement is particularly notable given Starmer's recent efforts to distance himself from Corbyn, a left-wing figure who has been ousted from the Labour Party and is now standing as an independent candidate. Despite Starmer's distancing, he defended his past support during the programme, explaining, "In 2019 I campaigned for the Labour Party as I’ve always campaigned for the Labour Party. I wanted good colleagues returned to parliament." The programme also highlighted Starmer's stance on various current issues, including the rental market. He criticized the practice of landlords "ripping off" tenants through bidding wars, where potential tenants are pitted against each other to drive up rents. Starmer proposed legislation to ban such practices if Labour wins office. He stated, "We have to stop the landlords ripping off tenants who are doing this bidding war: who’ll pay more until people are paying through the roof. We have to end that." However, when pressed for details by BBC presenter Fiona Bruce, Starmer provided limited specifics on how the plan would work. He emphasized the need for change, saying, "We can’t have this bidding war like this. We have to have a scheme in place to stop them driving rents up and up. Lots of renters are paying huge deposits and we have to stop that as well." Starmer also faced scrutiny over his shifting positions on other policies, including trans issues and NHS waiting lists. On trans issues, he clarified his stance, stating, "On the biology, I agree with what Tony Blair said in relation to men having penises and women having vaginas. That doesn’t help on the gender. There are some people who don’t identify with the gender that they are born into and they go through a lot of anxiety and distress. My view in life is to respect and give dignity to everyone." Regarding NHS waiting lists, Starmer admitted that it could take up to five years to return to normal levels. Initially hesitant to provide a timeline, he eventually stated, "We will start the work on waiting lists on day one in government... we will get those operations going as quickly as we can with staff." He later specified that backlogs would be addressed "over the course of the parliament," indicating a timeframe extending to 2029. Starmer also tackled the issue of immigration, a topic on which Labour has faced criticism for being perceived as too lenient. While he expressed a desire to reduce net migration, he refrained from setting a specific target. "Migration is at record levels under this Government. They’ve completely lost control. We need to get that number down. We need to get it significantly down," he said, adding, "I’m not going to put an arbitrary figure on it because every single politician who has put a number on it has never met that number." Throughout the programme, Starmer was repeatedly challenged on his policy reversals since becoming Labour leader. Critics have pointed out that he has abandoned many of the ten pledges he made during the 2020 Labour leadership contest. Defending his pragmatic approach, Starmer described himself as a "commonsense politician" and justified his decision to drop plans to nationalize energy firms, arguing it would be too costly and ineffective in reducing bills. The session on BBC Question Time showcased Starmer's attempts to navigate his past support for Corbyn while outlining his vision for Labour's future policies. His comments have sparked debate and highlighted the challenges he faces in balancing his leadership with the legacy of his predecessor. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The United States has announced a ban on the sale of antivirus software from the Russian company Kaspersky, citing concerns about its alleged connections to the Kremlin. According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Moscow's influence over Kaspersky poses a significant risk to US infrastructure and services. The decision is based on fears that Russia has the "capacity and... intent to collect and weaponize the personal information of Americans." Raimondo emphasized the necessity of the ban, stating, "Kaspersky will generally no longer be able to, among other activities, sell its software within the United States or provide updates to software already in use." This restriction is part of a broader set of powers, originally created by the Trump administration, that allows the US to ban or restrict transactions between American firms and technology companies from countries considered "foreign adversaries" like Russia and China. The ban, which will take effect on September 29, 2024, includes prohibitions on software updates, resales, and licensing of Kaspersky products. New business transactions with Kaspersky will be restricted within 30 days of the announcement. Sellers and resellers found violating these restrictions will face fines imposed by the Commerce Department. Additionally, two Russian and one UK-based unit of Kaspersky will be listed for allegedly cooperating with Russian military intelligence. Kaspersky, which has a multinational presence with offices in 31 countries and serves more than 400 million users and 270,000 corporate clients worldwide, has denied any involvement in activities that threaten US security. The company announced its intention to pursue "all legally available options" to challenge the ban. The US government has scrutinized Kaspersky for several years. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security banned Kaspersky's flagship antivirus product from federal networks, citing alleged ties to Russian intelligence. Despite these accusations, Kaspersky has maintained that it operates independently and does not engage in activities that compromise security. The exact number of Kaspersky customers in the US remains classified business data. However, a Commerce Department official informed Reuters that a "significant number" of customers would be affected by the ban, including state and local governments and companies involved in telecommunications, power, and healthcare sectors. This recent move by the US government highlights ongoing concerns about cybersecurity and the potential risks posed by foreign technology firms. The decision to ban Kaspersky reflects broader geopolitical tensions and the increasing measures taken by nations to safeguard their digital infrastructure from perceived threats. Credit: BBC 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office announced on Thursday that nearly all protesters charged with storming and occupying Columbia University’s campus during anti-Israel demonstrations will not face criminal charges. This decision has sparked outrage among law enforcement officials, higher education authorities, and Jewish advocates. In a dramatic NYPD raid on April 30, protesters were rounded up at Columbia University's Morningside Heights campus, resulting in charges against 46 individuals for trespassing in Hamilton Hall. However, the DA's office dismissed cases against 31 of these individuals, citing insufficient evidence, such as security footage, to tie them directly to the building's takeover. Michael Nussbaum, a member of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, expressed his frustration, stating, "This is turnstile justice. This is a green light for chaos, a green light for destroying property." The decision has been seen as undermining the severity of the incident and potentially encouraging similar actions in the future. Assistant District Attorney Stephen Millan explained that the prosecution faced significant challenges due to "extremely limited" video surveillance. During the police raid, cameras inside Hamilton Hall were covered, making it difficult to prove any damage or specific misconduct by individuals. Additionally, the protesters wore masks, complicating identification efforts. Millan also noted that none of the individuals whose charges were dropped had a criminal history, and the involvement of Columbia, Barnard, or Union Theological Seminary students and staff in the protests influenced the decision. These individuals face potential disciplinary action from their respective institutions. Among those whose charges were dropped is Aidan Parisi, a 27-year-old postgraduate student in social work at Columbia. However, James Carlson, considered a "possible leader" of the protests, remains charged with hate crime, assault, and petit larceny. Carlson allegedly torched an Israel supporter’s flag and hit the individual with a rock during an April demonstration. He is also accused of destroying a camera inside a holding cell at One Police Plaza. Carlson's attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, has disputed the validity of these allegations. Prosecutors informed 14 other individuals, including 12 unaffiliated with the Ivy League school, that their cases would be dismissed under certain conditions. Defense attorney Matthew W. Daloisio argued for immediate dismissal, emphasizing that no one was harmed or property damaged. The decision to drop charges has been met with disbelief and anger from several police sources. One officer questioned the adequacy of body-worn camera footage as evidence, while another veteran cop criticized the DA's actions as giving protesters a mandate to escalate their behavior. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a former trustee on the governing board for CUNY, criticized the inability to identify any individuals involved in the protests. "How can it be that you can’t identify a single person? It’s not acceptable and it’s not good for the city," Wiesenfeld stated. This incident highlights the challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial systems in dealing with large-scale protests and the need for clear and effective evidence to pursue criminal charges. The decision by DA Bragg’s office underscores the complexity of balancing legal standards of proof with public demands for accountability and justice. Credit: NYP 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Germany is on high alert for potential large-scale terror attacks similar to the Moscow concert hall assault, as it hosts the Euro 2024 football championship. German officials have expressed concerns that jihadist organizations, particularly Isis and its Afghan-based affiliate Isis-Khorasan (Isis-K), could target the event, which has entered its second week. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser and Thomas Haldenwang, head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BfV), have highlighted the increased threat posed by Isis-K. This group claimed responsibility for the massacre at Moscow’s Crocus City Hall in March, raising fears of a similar attack during the Euro 2024. Haldenwang emphasized that Isis-K is "certainly the most dangerous group" and warned of potential large-scale, coordinated attacks. The warning comes amid heightened security measures for the Euro 2024, an event that could serve as an attractive target for jihadist terrorists. Isis-K’s propaganda organ, "Voice of Khorasan," recently released a threatening collage showing a militant with an assault rifle in a football stadium, captioned: “shoot the last goal!” A poll conducted by Hohenheim University revealed that 20 percent of people planned to avoid public viewing events of Euro 2024 matches due to fears of terror attacks. Haldenwang noted that Isis-K had successfully sent its supporters to Western Europe under the guise of refugees from Ukraine. The group has been actively inciting violence against "soft targets" in Europe, reminiscent of past terror rampages in Paris and Brussels. Germany's threat perception has intensified following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 and the subsequent conflict in Gaza. Isis-K and other groups have been inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide, contributing to a surge in antisemitic crimes in Germany. Faeser reported a significant increase in antisemitic incidents, with individuals displaying Jewish symbols frequently subjected to verbal abuse or attacks. Isis-K, established in Afghanistan in 2015, has grown stronger since the US withdrawal from Kabul in 2021. Despite a counterinsurgency campaign by the Taliban, the group has expanded its international activities, including bombings in Iran, an attack on a church in Turkey, and a foiled plot to attack Sweden’s parliament. The BfV’s 2023 annual report indicates that Isis-K is increasingly targeting the West to assert its prominence within Isis. Last July, German police arrested seven individuals suspected of being Isis-K members, all from Central Asia who had entered Germany from Ukraine. They had planned attacks, scouted potential targets, and attempted to procure weapons. Earlier this month, authorities arrested Soufian T, a German-Moroccan-Polish national, for allegedly transferring $1,675 in cryptocurrency to an Isis-K account and attempting to secure a job as a steward for Euro 2024 public viewing events. Credit: The Times 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused China of systematically changing the names of hundreds of villages in the Xinjiang region, aiming to erase the culture and history of the Uyghur Muslim population. The allegations, detailed in a recent HRW report, suggest that between 2009 and 2023, the Chinese government replaced names related to Uyghur religion, history, or culture with terms that align with the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as "harmony" and "happiness." This renaming initiative is part of a broader effort by Chinese authorities to assimilate the Uyghur minority into mainstream Chinese culture. The report, based on data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China, highlights that out of 25,000 villages in Xinjiang, 3,600 had their names changed during this period. While many of these changes might seem inconsequential, around one-fifth, or 630, specifically targeted names with significant cultural, historical, or religious connotations for the Uyghurs. Examples of the changes include the replacement of words like "Hoja," a title for a Sufi religious teacher, and "Sultan," a political or honorific title, with terms reflecting CCP ideology. One notable instance is the renaming of Aq Meschit, which means "white mosque" in Akto County, to Unity village in 2018. HRW claims these changes are an attempt to eliminate references to Uyghur culture and impose a homogenous Chinese identity. Xinjiang, home to the majority of China’s Uyghur Muslims, has been the focal point of international criticism due to allegations of human rights abuses. Reports from various human rights organizations and researchers have pointed to a pattern of systematic repression, including mass detentions, forced labor, and cultural assimilation policies aimed at eradicating Uyghur identity. Despite these allegations, Chinese authorities have consistently denied any wrongdoing. In response to the HRW report, a spokesperson from the Chinese embassy in London refuted the claims, asserting that "people of all ethnic groups enjoy freedom of religious belief under the law" and that the "languages and cultures of the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities are protected and promoted." The HRW report was conducted in collaboration with the Norway-based organization Uyghur Hjelp, examining the names of villages over a 14-year period. The study underscores the deliberate nature of these name changes and suggests that they are part of a broader strategy to assimilate the Uyghur population and suppress any distinct cultural or religious identity that could challenge the CCP's narrative of unity and harmony. This latest report adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that China's policies in Xinjiang are aimed at cultural genocide. International reactions have varied, with some governments and human rights organizations calling for sanctions and other punitive measures against China. However, Beijing continues to assert its sovereignty over Xinjiang and denies all allegations of human rights abuses, framing its policies as necessary for national security and social stability. The issue remains a contentious point in international relations, with significant implications for global human rights advocacy and the geopolitical dynamics involving China and the Western world. As the evidence of cultural erasure and human rights violations continues to mount, the international community faces increasing pressure to address these issues and hold the Chinese government accountable for its actions in Xinjiang. Credit: BBC 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Al Jazeera, the international news network funded by the state of Qatar, has long been a subject of controversy. While it is lauded in some circles for its in-depth reporting and coverage of global issues, there is another side to this media giant that raises significant concerns. Recent revelations have brought to light instances where individuals working as journalists for Al Jazeera were found to be affiliated with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These allegations have serious implications, particularly in the context of media ethics and national security. Last month, The Washington Post reported that the Israeli government had shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel due to its coverage from Gaza. The Post portrayed this move as a "dark day" for press freedom, highlighting the perceived overreach by the Israeli authorities. However, there are substantial reasons behind Israel’s decision to halt the network’s activities within its borders, one of the most compelling being that some Al Jazeera journalists reporting on Israel’s conflict with Gaza were themselves involved in terrorist activities. One such individual is Muhammad Washah, whom Al Jazeera presented as a dedicated journalist merely reporting the truth. Unfortunately for the network, Washah is also a senior commander in Hamas. His involvement with Hamas is extensive; he used to be in the group’s anti-tank missile unit and has been in charge of research and development for aerial weapons, known commonly as rockets, since 2022. This dual role allowed him to both create weapons aimed at Israel and report on the resultant destruction from the Israeli retaliations, painting a one-sided narrative that omits his involvement in the conflict. This duplicity was revealed when IDF soldiers in Gaza managed to obtain Washah’s laptop, which provided evidence of his true loyalties. This discovery highlights a significant conflict of interest and raises questions about the integrity of the reports coming from such journalists. Similar issues arose with two Al Jazeera "journalists" who were killed in an airstrike in Rafah in January. Hamza Wael Dahdouh, the son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza correspondent Wael Al-Dahdouh, was in a vehicle with a Hamas drone operator targeting Israeli soldiers when they were hit. Wael Dahdouh was not just a journalist; he was actively involved in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, participating in attacks against Israel. The network’s narrative of them being innocent journalists targeted by Israeli aggression fails to acknowledge their direct involvement in terrorist activities. Another Al Jazeera journalist, Ismail Abu Omar, was reported by the network as being badly injured in Khan Yunis in February. Al Jazeera claimed he had been "deliberately targeted" as part of a broader pattern of intimidation against their journalists. However, it turned out that Abu Omar was not just a correspondent but also the deputy commander of Hamas’ Eastern battalion in Khan Yunis. His involvement in the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, where he praised the massacres and boasted about the atrocities, further discredits the image of him as merely a journalist. One of the most shocking revelations came earlier this month when the Israeli army rescued four hostages from homes in Gaza. One of the captors, Abdallah Aljamal, was found to be an Al Jazeera contributor. While writing articles about the humanitarian suffering in Gaza, he was simultaneously holding and torturing Israeli hostages in his home. This dual role of reporting and participating in terrorist activities is a new low even by Al Jazeera’s controversial standards. These instances illustrate a disturbing pattern where individuals associated with Al Jazeera are found to have significant ties to terrorist organizations, thus raising questions about the network’s credibility and the true nature of its operations. This is not a new issue for Al Jazeera, as its ties to Qatar, a state accused of supporting various extremist groups, have long been scrutinized. The network's ability to operate with these alleged connections while maintaining a facade of journalistic integrity is troubling. In a debate in Toronto, Al Jazeera contributor Mehdi Hasan, known for his extreme views, defended the network against accusations related to its coverage of the conflict. Despite working for a network funded by Qatar, an actual apartheid state where a small number of citizens are served by a large class of foreign workers with no human rights, Hasan criticized Israel and those questioning Al Jazeera's integrity. The network’s close ties with Hamas, whose leaders reside in Doha, Qatar, further complicate its position as a credible news source. Hasan’s return to Al Jazeera after being let go by MSNBC, which cited his increasingly extreme views, underscores the challenges in balancing journalistic freedom with accountability. His defense of Al Jazeera amidst these serious allegations raises important questions about media ethics and the role of journalists in conflict zones. The Washington Post's portrayal of Israel's shutdown of Al Jazeera as an attack on press freedom ignores the substantial evidence linking the network’s staff to terrorist activities. The presence of six former Al Jazeera journalists on the Post's foreign desk may explain the newspaper's biased coverage. This situation exemplifies how media organizations can become complicit in perpetuating biased narratives, further complicating the public's understanding of complex geopolitical issues. In conclusion, the allegations against Al Jazeera and its ties to terrorist organizations are serious and warrant thorough investigation. The network’s ability to operate with these connections while presenting itself as a credible news source is troubling and highlights the need for greater scrutiny of media organizations and their affiliations. As the debate over media integrity and national security continues, it is crucial to hold all news outlets accountable for their actions and the roles their employees play in conflicts around the world. Related Topics: Al Jazeera journalist reportedly moonlights as Hamas commander claims IDF Israeli Forces Rescue Hostages, Held By Al Jazeera & Palestine Chronicle Journalist Exposing What Others Prefer to Hide The Dismal State of Hamas Propoganda by Media Credit: NYP 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stern warning to South Korea, cautioning against supplying arms to Ukraine amid its ongoing conflict with Russia. This warning follows Seoul's consideration of such a move in response to the newly forged pact between Russia and North Korea, which promises mutual assistance in the event of aggression against either nation. Putin, addressing reporters from Vietnam shortly after his state visit to North Korea, described the potential arming of Ukraine by South Korea as a "big mistake." He emphasized that such an action would provoke decisions from Moscow that would be displeasing to the South Korean leadership. The warning comes at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, as Moscow and Pyongyang solidify their defense agreement, a development that Seoul has vehemently criticized. The Russian leader's comments underscore his readiness to retaliate should South Korea proceed with arming Ukraine. "Those who supply these weapons believe that they are not at war with us. I said, including in Pyongyang, that we then reserve the right to supply weapons to other regions of the world," Putin stated. This suggests a possible escalation in the arms race, with Russia hinting at arming Pyongyang in response to Western and allied support for Ukraine. South Korea's response to these developments has been measured but firm. Seoul's presidential office announced that it would consider "various options" regarding arms supplies to Ukraine, indicating that its stance would hinge on Russia's future actions. Additionally, South Korea summoned Russian Ambassador Georgy Zinoviev to express its strong protest against the Moscow-Pyongyang pact, demanding an immediate cessation of military cooperation with North Korea. While South Korea has provided humanitarian aid and military equipment to Ukraine, it has maintained a policy of not supplying lethal weapons to countries at war. This restraint is now being tested as the dynamics of international alliances shift. Ukraine, facing increased military collaboration between Russia and North Korea, has been hopeful that these developments might persuade Seoul to change its stance. During Putin's visit to North Korea, Kim Jong Un pledged full support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, further solidifying the alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang. There is growing evidence that North Korean missiles are already being used by Russian forces in Ukraine, exacerbating the conflict and international concerns. John Kirby, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, commented on the Russia-North Korea agreement, stating it should "be of concern to any country that cares about maintaining peace and stability" in the region. He highlighted that the burgeoning defense relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang had been anticipated for months. Similarly, Japan's government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi expressed "serious concern" over potential military technology cooperation between Russia and North Korea, labeling the agreement as "unacceptable." Analysts warn that the Russia-North Korea treaty could have far-reaching implications beyond the immediate region. Not only does it signal the possibility of North Korea openly arming Russia, but it also raises the specter of Russian intervention in any new conflict on the Korean peninsula. The two Koreas remain technically at war, maintaining a heavily fortified border where tensions have recently escalated. In a separate but related incident, North Korean troops briefly crossed the border into South Korea before retreating after warning shots were fired by South Korean forces. This marks the third such incursion in less than three weeks, with the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff suggesting that the previous incidents were likely unintentional. Credit: BBC 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump is currently outpacing President Joe Biden in six pivotal battleground states, according to recent polling data from Emerson College and The Hill. The polls indicate that Trump has a lead over Biden in Arizona (47%-43%), Georgia (45%-41%), Michigan (46%-45%), Nevada (46%-43%), Pennsylvania (47%-45%), and Wisconsin (47%-44%). In addition, both candidates are tied at 45% in Minnesota, a state that has not favored a Republican presidential candidate since the Great Depression era. The Emerson College Polling Executive Director, Spencer Kimball, noted that despite Trump’s recent conviction on 34 business fraud charges by a Manhattan jury, the polling numbers for both candidates have remained relatively stable. "In our first polling in several key swing states since Trump’s conviction last month, there has been little movement, with support for both Trump and Biden staying largely consistent since November," Kimball explained, emphasizing that the results fall within the poll’s margin of error. The Trump campaign has argued that Minnesota is a competitive state for the upcoming election. "Independent voters break for Trump in all seven states – however, there has been some movement among these voters since April," Kimball said. He pointed out that while Trump’s support among independents in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania has dropped, Biden also saw declines among independents in Georgia and Nevada. The RealClearPolitics polling average corroborates these findings, showing Trump ahead of Biden in the same six battleground states with margins ranging from 0.2 percentage points in Michigan to 5.7 percentage points in Nevada. Interestingly, the Emerson/The Hill survey also indicates that Democratic candidates in key Senate races are outperforming Biden. In Arizona, Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego leads Republican Kari Lake, 45% to 41%. In Pennsylvania, incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey is ahead of Republican David McCormick, 47% to 41%. Similar trends are observed in Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, with Democratic candidates maintaining leads over their Republican counterparts. A significant portion of voters in the surveyed states disapproves of Biden's performance in office, with approval ratings ranging between 35% in Georgia and 39% in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The economy emerged as the top concern among voters across all states surveyed, with varying secondary issues such as threats to democracy, immigration, healthcare, and housing. In Arizona, a majority of voters (55%) expressed support for a ballot measure that would empower state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants and allow state judges to order deportations. Similarly, majorities in Arizona (56%) and Nevada (58%) indicated they would approve measures to enshrine the right to an abortion in their state constitutions. The polling data, collected from 1,000 registered voters in each state between June 13 and June 18, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The first debate between Biden and Trump for the general election season is scheduled to take place next Thursday in Atlanta. Credit: NYP 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Link to Telegram a member only unapproved social media source has been removed.

A couple of off topic troll posts removed. If you cant keep to the topic then dont expect your post to remain. No further warnings given. The Gaza Famine Has Been Cancelled Unmasking the Propaganda Against Israel

Donald Sutherland, the renowned Canadian actor whose illustrious career spanned over half a century, has passed away at the age of 88 after a prolonged illness. His son, actor Kiefer Sutherland, shared the heartbreaking news, stating, "With a heavy heart, I tell you that my father, Donald Sutherland, has passed away. I personally think one of the most important actors in the history of film. Never daunted by a role, good, bad or ugly. He loved what he did and did what he loved, and one can never ask for more than that. A life well lived." Donald Sutherland's death has elicited a flood of tributes from colleagues, fans, and notable figures around the world. Cary Elwes, who starred alongside Sutherland in the 2001 television film *Uprising*, expressed his sorrow on Instagram, saying, "Our hearts are breaking for you. So grateful to have known [and] worked with him. Sending our love." Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also paid homage to Sutherland, reflecting on their first encounter: "My thoughts go out to Kiefer and the entire Sutherland family, as well as all Canadians who are no doubt saddened to learn, as I am right now. He was a man with a strong presence, a brilliance in his craft and truly, truly a great Canadian artist." Director Ron Howard, who worked with Sutherland on the 1991 film *Backdraft*, lauded him as "one of the most intelligent, interesting [and] engrossing film actors of all time." Born in New Brunswick, Canada, in 1935, Sutherland initially pursued a career as a radio news reporter before venturing to London in 1957 to study at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. His early career saw him take on minor roles in British film and television, but it wasn't long before he made a significant impact in Hollywood. His breakout role came in 1967 with *The Dirty Dozen*, a war film that set the stage for his future success. The 1970s were a prolific period for Sutherland, with notable performances in *M*A*S*H* and *Kelly's Heroes*. He starred alongside Jane Fonda in Alan J. Pakula's 1971 thriller *Klute*, where their on-screen chemistry blossomed into a two-year romantic relationship. During this decade, he also showcased his versatility with roles ranging from an IRA member in *The Eagle Has Landed* to a pot-smoking college professor in *National Lampoon's Animal House*, and the lead in the 1978 remake of *Invasion of the Body Snatchers*. In the 1980s, Sutherland delivered a poignant performance as the father of a suicidal teenager in the Oscar-winning *Ordinary People*. The following decades saw him embrace television roles in series such as *Dirty Sexy Money* and *Commander-in-Chief*, while continuing to make impactful film appearances. Despite his extensive body of work, which includes nearly 200 credits, Sutherland was never nominated for an Oscar. However, he received an honorary Academy Award in 2017, recognizing his significant contributions to the film industry. Throughout his career, Sutherland was known for his political activism, particularly his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he protested alongside Jane Fonda. His socio-political beliefs often influenced his choice of roles, most notably his portrayal of the tyrannical President Snow in *The Hunger Games* series. In a 2015 interview with the BBC, he expressed hope that the film's message would resonate with young audiences, encouraging them to become more aware of global issues. Reflecting on the changes in the acting industry over his career, Sutherland remarked on the increased financial rewards for actors. "I don't think anybody of my generation became an actor to make money. It never occurred to me. I made £8 a week here [on stage in London]. When I starred in a play at the Royal Court, I made £17 a week, that was in 1964," he told the BBC. Even in his later years, Sutherland had no intention of retiring from his craft. "It's a passionate endeavour. Retirement for actors is spelt 'DEATH'," he said. Sutherland's legacy will continue to be celebrated, with his memoir, *Made Up, But Still True*, set for publication in November. His passing marks the end of an era for a remarkable actor whose talent, dedication, and passion for his craft have left an indelible mark on the film industry. Credit: BBC 2024-06-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists targeted the ancient monument of Stonehenge, spraying it with orange powder paint. This act led to the swift arrest of two individuals by Wiltshire police. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was quick to condemn the action, labeling it a “disgraceful act of vandalism” against one of the world's oldest and most revered monuments. The incident unfolded around noon when the activists carried out their protest, shocking visitors and locals alike. Sunak expressed his dismay over the vandalism, stating, “This is a disgraceful act of vandalism to one of the UK’s and the world’s oldest and most important monuments.” His comments highlighted the severity with which the government views such acts against national heritage sites. Dale Vince, a notable Labour donor and former supporter of JSO, responded to Sunak’s call for condemnation. Vince, addressing the Prime Minister’s remarks directly, said, “Since Rishi Sunak has asked me personally to comment, I will. I don’t support what JSO did today, it’s that simple. But there are far worse actions we could focus on, far more harmful ones – like pushing two million children and their families into poverty.” Vince’s statement aimed to shift the focus towards broader social issues, even as he distanced himself from the specific actions of the activists. Labour leader Keir Starmer was equally unequivocal in his disapproval, describing the group’s actions as “pathetic.” Starmer emphasized the need for legal consequences, asserting, “Those responsible must face the full force of the law.” This stance reflects the broader political consensus on the importance of protecting national monuments from such acts of defacement. The protest did not go unchallenged by the public. Visitors at Stonehenge attempted to intervene, with one individual managing to wrestle a spray can away from a protester. This act of civic responsibility underscores the shared value placed on preserving cultural heritage. Wiltshire police responded promptly to the scene, arresting two suspects on charges of damaging the ancient monument. In a statement, the police confirmed, “We have arrested two people following an incident at Stonehenge this afternoon. At around noon, we responded to a report that orange paint had been sprayed on some of the stones by two suspects. Officers attended the scene and arrested two people on suspicion of damaging the ancient monument. Our inquiries are ongoing.” The timing of the protest coincided with preparations for the summer solstice, a period when thousands of druids and revelers travel to Stonehenge to celebrate. This added to the dismay of the community and visitors. Sean Moran, a guide at the site, voiced his frustration, saying, “It was devastating. I was very angry. We were having a great time and enjoying it when it happened. There’s living lichen on those stones. Biologists from around the world [come] to study it … Did they think of that?” Moran’s comments highlight the scientific and ecological importance of the site, which extends beyond its cultural and historical significance. King Arthur Pendragon, a senior druid and pagan priest, also condemned the protest. Pendragon, who is running as an independent parliamentary candidate for the area, stated, “Stonehenge is a living, working temple at times of celebration and pilgrimage such as the summer solstice and, as a well-known protester myself, I totally disapprove of such behavior as demonstrated by these people, who do nothing to enhance and everything to alienate any sympathy anyone has or had for their cause.” Pendragon’s remarks reflect the broader sentiment within the druid and pagan communities, who view such actions as disrespectful and counterproductive. Paul Anderson, visiting from Newcastle upon Tyne, recounted his experience, saying, “We were around the other side and we saw a lot of orange mist. I can’t see how that’s good publicity, doing something like that to an ancient monument. Coming from Newcastle, after the Sycamore Gap tree was felled, it beggars belief.” Anderson’s wife, Elaine, added, “It’s ruined the day, but not the holiday. I’m not going to let them. How dare you? It’s the last thing you’d expect.” Their reactions illustrate the broader impact on tourists who travel from afar to visit the historic site. Mike and Julie, tourists from the west coast of the United States, also expressed their disappointment. Mike lamented, “They are ruining it for people who have come from across the world to have their moment and see it.” Julie noted the closure of the path around the stones following the incident, adding to the disruption experienced by visitors. In a statement following the protest, Just Stop Oil defended their actions, describing it as “megalithic action.” They called for urgent governmental action to halt the extraction and burning of fossil fuels by 2030. The group argued, “Continuing to burn coal, oil and gas will result in the death of millions. We have to come together to defend humanity, or we risk everything. That’s why Just Stop Oil is demanding that our next government sign up to a legally binding treaty to phase out fossil fuels by 2030.” This declaration underscores the activists’ sense of urgency and the drastic measures they believe are necessary to combat climate change. The incident at Stonehenge has sparked a wide range of reactions, from condemnation to reflection on broader issues. While the actions of JSO have been widely criticized, they have also succeeded in drawing attention to the climate crisis, albeit in a highly contentious manner. The debate continues over the most effective and ethical ways to advocate for environmental sustainability while respecting cultural and historical landmarks. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-21 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Buster Murdaugh, the son of convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh, has initiated a defamation lawsuit against major media companies, including Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery. The legal action stems from documentary series produced by these companies, which Murdaugh alleges falsely implicated him in the 2015 death of Stephen Smith, a former high school classmate. The complaint, filed in South Carolina last Friday, contends that the documentaries on Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max streaming service and Netflix contained statements that were defamatory. According to the complaint, these statements “falsely accused the Plaintiff of being involved in the murder of Stephen Smith.” The documents further assert that the dissemination of these claims has caused Buster Murdaugh's reputation irreparable harm and inflicted significant mental anguish. Buster Murdaugh has consistently denied any involvement in Smith’s death. In a previous statement to NBC News, he addressed the persistent rumors, expressing his distress over the ongoing speculation amid his personal grief. “I have tried my best to ignore the vicious rumors about my involvement in Stephen Smith’s tragic death that continue to be published in the media as I grieve over the brutal murders of my mother and brother,” he stated. This lawsuit marks the latest chapter in the tumultuous saga of the Murdaugh family. Buster’s father, Alex Murdaugh, was sentenced to life imprisonment in July of the previous year for the 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and his son, Paul Murdaugh. The high-profile case has kept the Murdaugh family in the media spotlight, further complicating Buster Murdaugh’s efforts to distance himself from the allegations concerning Stephen Smith. Buster Murdaugh’s frustration with the ongoing rumors was palpable in his statement to NBC News, where he declared, “This has gone on far too long. These baseless rumors of my involvement with Stephen and his death are false. I unequivocally deny any involvement in his death, and my heart goes out to the Smith family.” The defamation lawsuit aims to hold Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery accountable for the alleged false statements in their documentary content. The Hill has reached out to legal representatives for Murdaugh, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Netflix for comments on the matter. As of now, the media companies have not issued public responses to the lawsuit. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how documentary content is produced and the responsibilities of media companies in verifying the accuracy of their portrayals. The case underscores the ongoing tension between the need for public interest journalism and the protection of individual reputations, particularly in high-profile cases involving intense media scrutiny. Buster Murdaugh’s legal battle is poised to become a critical test case for defamation law in the context of modern streaming services and documentary filmmaking. The resolution of this case will likely resonate beyond the immediate parties involved, influencing the standards and practices of the media industry at large. Credit: Hill 2024-06-21 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe