El Paso Cops Smothered Xavier Hernandez to Death to Stop Him from Committing Suicide. Police Release [public] Video with 6 Minutes Missing, Family Seeks Eyewitnesses

The attorneys for the family of an El Paso man whose controversial death while being arrested by police on Interstate 10 was ruled a homicide are asking for witnesses to come forward.

Xavier Guadalupe Hernandez, 30, died on July 13 after he was shocked multiple times with a Taser and pinned down by police officers for more than five minutes along I-10.

According to EPPD, Hernandez was attempting to jump off the interstate and became uncooperative when officers tried to restrain him around 10 a.m.

"He was in pain, in crisis, and he begged, ‘Someone call 911, please.’ Instead of compassion, instead of care, he was met with tasers, chokeholds, fists, and the crushing weight of officers pinning him down face-first on burning asphalt until he could no longer breathe," his mother, Angelica Lujan, said in a statement issued through the family's attorneys on Wednesday, Sept. 3.

"My son died with his hands behind his back, unarmed, begging for mercy," Lujan said. "He did not deserve to die like that. No one deserves to die like that."

An autopsy by the El Paso County Medical Examiner's Office determined the death was a homicide caused by "asphyxia due to chest compression during law enforcement subdual and restrain" with cocaine toxicity as a "significant" factor.

The case will likely go to a grand jury to determine if criminal charges will be filed against the officers involved. The names of the officers have not been released.

The family is being represented by Texas civil rights and personal injury lawyers Robert Melendez and Jeff Edwards, both of Austin.

"After George Floyd, every officer in America knows that once someone is prone and restrained, you must roll them onto their side so they can breathe. It is as basic as it gets. This is a death that never should have occurred," Edwards said in a statement.

Family's attorneys: Xavier Hernandez was victim of excessive force, excessive restraint

Last month, the El Paso Police Department released body camera video of what started as a call about a pedestrian causing a hazard on the roadway on I-10 near Yarbrough Drive.

The video shows as the situation quickly escalate as Hernandez, who appears to be in distress, keeps asking for the officer's badge number as the officer repeatedly shocks Hernandez with an electric stun-gun while trying to handcuff him. Eventually, Hernandez is handcuffed and held down by police on the side of the busy freeway.

The Hernandez family's attorneys said in statement that police escalated the use of force instead of deescalating an encounter with someone in a mental health crisis. Hernandez was also a victim of "excessive restraint" with police officers applying prolonged chest pressure, resulting in a rib fracture and ultimately his death, the attorneys claimed.

"The key issue here is that officers remained on top of Xavier even after he was tased, handcuffed, and subdued while face down," Melendez said. "Xavier's last words were asking for help. His death is a call for accountability and justice we cannot ignore."

Xavier Hernandez's family requests bystander videos, statements

The body camera video released by EPPD edited out about six minutes during which Hernandez was supposedly pinned to the ground until just before he becomes unresponsive. The bodycam video jumps from the 10:17:35 time stamp to 10:23:39.

The Hernandez family's attorneys are asking for any bystanders to come forward with any video footage, photos, witness accounts or information on the I-10 incident.

The legal team has set up a 24-hour tip line at 888-707-1911. Videos and photos can also be emailed to tips@justiceforxavier.com [MORE]

Fiery FLA Surgeon General Ends All Vaccine Mandates: ‘The Authority to Impose Vaccines is Slavery. The Gov Doesn’t Have a Right to Tell You What to Put in Your Body. They Want to You to Believe That!'

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE FROM GOD, NOT GOVERNMENT. Karen Kingston wrote, “Comparing the government’s authority to impose vaccine mandates under threat of punishment to slavery, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo passionately declared,

"The Florida Department of Health in partnership with the Governor, is going to be working to end ALL vaccine mandates in Florida law. All of them. ALL of them! Every last one of them. Every last one of them. All of them. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Every last one is wrong and DRIPS with disdain and slavery! Who am I, as a Government or anyone else, to tell YOU what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your CHILD should put in their body? I don't have that right. Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and God."

"The Government Does Not Have That Right. They Want to You to Believe They Have That Right and unfortunately They’ve been successful. It’s wrong. It’s immoral They do not have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them.”

Dr. Ladapo’s powerful reminder that the government does not have the authority to tell us what to put in our bodies or our children, because our human rights come from God, not from government, is so prescient today.” [MORE]

It’s interesting that the Surgeon General has claimed that all vaccine mandates, including ones involving legitimate vaccines that pass Constitutional muster, are immoral and wrong. In his speech, he appears to be discussing governmental authority in general, which is unheard of in retail politics, and a pleasant surprise.

To be clear, The Supreme Court has made it plain that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” It instructed courts to balance an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate. Nevertheless, government authorities and massa media have remixed the definition of “vaccine” to make it interchangeable in the public’s mind with “medical treatments,” which are just therapeutic remedies taken solely for the recipient’s benefit, a private health matter that doesn’t involve the general public. For instance, during the plandemic authorities and their media sold COVID injections as vaccines but they clearly were not. COVID shots absolutely do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity to COVID. As such, COVID injections were simply individual medical treatments, not vaccines, and no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness. While the Court has made it plain that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others, the government may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ Therefore, an individual has a constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, such as COVID “vaccines,” because they are not vaccines in that they fail to meet the legal standard for a vaccine. Thus, they could not be lawfully mandated.

Here however, Ladapo was talking about authority on another level – specifically, he condemned government authority to compel people to take even legitimate vaccines (BW is not stating that such vaccines actually exist). He stated that government authority to mandate vaccines is simply based on “our belief” that a government has the power to mandate vaccines. He said, “They Want to You to Believe They Have That Right [to mandate vaccines] and unfortunately They’ve been successful [in leading you to believe they have legitimate authority to do so]. It’s wrong. It’s immoral They do not have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Do not give it to them [your belief]. Take it away from them.” In other words, there is no actual, substantive or legitimate basis for governmental authority to impose vaccines in the first place. Ladapo stated that “no man or government can tell another person what to put in their body. Every last [mandate] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery! Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and God."

Its axiomatic that all government power comes from the people. If no man has the power to impose a vaccine on another man then no man could possibly delegate his power to a government representative, such as a governor or president or a legislature, to impose a vaccine on others. People have no such individual power to grant their government representatives such power. Ladapo’s position is that due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for government authority to impose vaccines then vaccine mandates are slavery imposed by the government. Persons who disobey mandates will be punished however the government deems fit.

His position is far reaching and may be applied to all government authority. Where did the government acquire its power to compel people to do anything? As stated, allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not themselves possess. An agent or government representative can only be authorized to hold the power of the principal or the citizen. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her - so it is impossible for an agent/representative to possess more power than the principal/citizen. You can’t give something you don’t have.For instance, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. If you stopped, searched, detained and put your neighbor into handcuffs and locked him in a basement for failing to comply with one your commands eventually you would be convicted of several crimes. Does math change anything (majority rule)? Could a group of neighbors authorize their government representative to do something that they couldn’t do themselves? Could the group transfer powers it doesn’t have to the representative? No. The government’s power to forcibly control others didn’t come from individuals under the delegation doctrine or any natural, rational source. In the case of government, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do.

Importantly, when government authority engages in such activity it is exempt from law and morality and ‘its citizens’ are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey all its orders and laws. This hypothesized moral property (authority) believed to be possessed by all governments is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs.

The question of “authority” is the question of whether any government has the right to rule over or govern people in the first place. Said question is not a theoretical one. Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. If government authority is not legitimate, having no valid source and is a mere belief in our minds then it is slavery and all who are subject to it are slaves. As such, the inquiry is important to anyone who values freedom and life.

To be clear, political “authority” is the so-called governmental right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral, legal and content neutral obligation to obey.’ Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government. We are born into this involuntary arrangement.

Unfortunately, in addition to the delegation theory discussed above, all other theories that purport to account for the legitimacy of authority, have been thoroughly debunked. The following theories as laid out by Michael Huemer also fail to legitimize or provide a rational basis for authority:

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. The idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws and do so in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes. That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract actually exists.

At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. Decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police or fire protection, to any particular individual citizen. It means for instance that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for its failure to protect citizens, as it has no legal obligation to do in reality. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties. [MORE] and[MORE].

Pursuant to the social contract, citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and authoritites and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?” There is no contract between the individual and the state. It is device or trick to control the populace. 

IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. Under an implicit agreement to obey authority we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter; you must obey authority, government services are mandatory. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out of the plantation and no way to avoid being a slave subject to another plantation owner.

AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” Government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.

CONSENT BY PRESENCE. Does an individual consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means that governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic, as stated by Michael Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.” 

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such a statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. [MORE]

CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Does consent through participation with government or voting make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not and still must obey regardless of participation or non-participation [MORE]

MAGIC WORDS, CAPES & CEREMONIES. It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, special costumes to put on, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over other people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

As such, there appears to be no valid basis for authority. “Authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any rational or natural source. Authority is merely a belief in the minds of people. Consequently it is only an implied right to rule over people.

In reality, authority is based on force and mind control. As stated by the Florida Surgeon General with regard to forced vaccinations, the authority to compel vaccinations under the threat of punishment is immoral and wrong. However, authority is immoral and evil in all human affairs - not just with mandates. Due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for authority, then authority is slavery and all who are subject to authority (all of humanity) are slaves. As explained, there is no other kind of government in the world other than government based on authority. Thus, governmental rule is slavery. As stated by Dr. Blynd, ‘Despite all rationalizations by statists (people who believe in government), “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. ‘The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.’ FUNKTIONARY further states,  governments are transitory mental contrivances (repressive fictions) established by elites as a covenant (belief system) to live off the masses.

Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement. All government “Laws” in actuality are threats backed by the ability and willingness of authorities to use violence/force against those who disobey. Of course, an individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. Michael Huemer states, “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be detained. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’ 

Once it is overstood that authority is only a belief in our minds, it is easy to see that ruling over other people by force and coercion is irrational and barbaric. [MORE]

It should be understood that slavery is not a concept of totality. As explained by Jeremy Locke, “Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. Theft and bullying are slavery. In history, many people throughout the world have experienced lifelong slavery. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” FUNKTIONARY states, “citizens can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery” - “like free-range cattle.”

As demonstrated, there is no valid justification for one man (or government) to have supreme authority over another. Although we all assume that there must be some valid explanation for why the government should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights and would be immoral or evil if performed by anyone other than the government, there is none. Trent Goodbaudy describes this is as a “statist delusion.” He states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.” Similarly, Dr. Ladapo said, in another context of course, Government wants you to believe they have authority, but don’t give it to them.’

Larken Rose explained,

The problem is not just that “authority” can be used for evil; the problem is that, at its most basic essence, it is evil. In everything it does, it defeats the free will of human being controlling them through coercion and fear. It supersedes and destroys moral consciences, replacing them with unthinking blind obedience. It cannot be used for good, any more than a bomb can be used to heal a body. It is always aggression, always the enemy of peace, always the enemy of justice. The moment it ceases to be an attacker, it ceases to fit the definition of “government.” It is, by its very nature, a murderer and a thief, the enemy of mankind, a poison to humanity. As dominator and controller, ruler and oppressor, it can be nothing else.

The alleged right to rule, in any degree and in any form, is the opposite of humanity. The initiation of violence is the opposite of harmonious coexistence. The desire for dominion is the opposite of love for mankind. Hiding the violence under layers of complex rituals and self-contradictory rationalizations, and labeling brute thuggery as virtue and compassion, does not change that fact. Claiming noble goals, saying that the violence is “the will of the people,” or that it is being committed “for the common good” or “for the children,” cannot change evil into good. “Legalizing” wrong does not make it right. One man forcibly subjugating another, no matter how it is described or how it is carried out, is uncivilized and immoral. The destruction it causes, the injustice it creates, the damage it does to every soul that it touches – perpetrators, victims, and spectators alike-cannot be undone by calling it “law,” or by claiming that it was necessary. Evil, by any name, is still evil.

It should also be understood that authority doesn’t exist for the sole sake of empowering government authorities. Authority functions on behalf of powerful elites who control the masses in a “domination hierarchy” through its use and other mental contrivances. Government authorities serve their masters who are the ruling class. Authority is the belief that enables the global “system of power supremacy.” Said system is controlled by  an elite class of intergenerational financiers and psychopathic human parasites. FUNKTIONARY explains this system continues the traditions of the kings (the divine rights) and the evolution from the first man to seek the power to control or use force over men and women for whatever reason.

FUNKTIONARY  explains, “The real threat to “authority” is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” The question is, now that you know you are a slave, what are you going to do about it?

Coin-Operated Corpse Bernie Sanders and Other Elite Liberal Puppeticians More Lathered Up About MAHA than Defending the Rights of the Millions of Black People who Keep Their Party Viable in Elections

Ilhan Omar Claimed It's "Categorically False" to Call Her a Millionaire. Her Net Worth Just Reached Up to $30 Million, an Increase of at Least 3,500 Percent in 1 Year.

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s personal fortune exploded to upwards of $30 million in 2024, the Minnesota Democrat disclosed just months after telling the press it is "ridiculous" and "categorically false" to say she is worth millions of dollars.

Omar reported in her latest financial disclosure that she and her husband, former political consultant Tim Mynett, accumulated a net worth at the end of 2024 ranging from at least $6 million to $30 million. Their wealth is derived almost entirely from the value of Mynett’s ownership stake in his two companies that, together, were worth no more than $51,000 at the end of 2023. The exact value of Omar’s personal fortune at the end of 2024 is unclear—lawmakers disclose the value of their holdings and debts in ranges. Still, the figures in Omar’s latest disclosures show that her and her husband’s net worth skyrocketed by at least 3,500 percent in just one year.

Omar’s extraordinary accumulation of wealth in 2024 could raise uncomfortable questions for the Minnesota Democrat, who in February told Business Insider that she has been the subject of a "coordinated right-wing disinformation campaign" that falsely claims she’s worth millions of dollars. Omar said any insinuation that she’s worth more than a few thousand dollars was "ridiculous" and "categorically false." She also took to X in February, challenging her followers to "maybe try checking my public financial statements and you will see I barely have thousands let alone millions." [MORE]

In Exchange for Trinkets Quisling Muriel Bowser Bows Down to Trump. Still, Control Over the MPD is Unlawful w/o a Joint Resolution from Congress and Only If MPD is Used for Federal Purposes, Not Crime

AN ACCESSORY TO STUPIDITY. D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) on Tuesday ordered indefinite coordination between the city and federal law enforcement officials, a powerful indication of her willingness to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s effort to take over public safety in the capital city.

Bowser issued an executive order that requires local coordination with federal law enforcement “to the maximum extent allowable by law within the District.” The order gives no expiration date.

By law, Trump’s federalization of the D.C. police force lasts 30 days and is set to expire next week. Bowser’s announcement hopes to quell any showdown over what happens after that deadline passes by authorizing continued coordination between the city and federal authorities.

Bowser, meanwhile, has gone out of her way to show Trump and his staff that she is a partner, not an adversary, in their vision for the city — even sharing draft language of the executive order with senior White House officials before signing it, according to two individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private communications. Her police chief authorized enhanced cooperation with ICE, and in a news conference last week, Bowser publicly credited the president’s efforts with decreasing crime. She also has been generally affable during one-on-one conversations with Trump. [MORE]

However, Bowser is a bignorant quisling and unfamiliar the president’s limited authority over the DC government and the Home Rule Act, which is an act of Congress. Congress granted the President an exceedingly narrow role in the governance of the District. In Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, Congress provided that if the President “determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,” the President may require that the Mayor “provide such services” of the Metropolitan Police Department as the President deems necessary for “federal purposes.” D.C. Code § 1-207.40(a). The President’s authority under Section 740 is sharply limited in time: it must terminate within 48 hours unless the President sends proper notice to Congress, and, in all events, it must terminate upon the expiration of the emergency or within 30 days, whichever comes first. Id. § 1-207.40(a)-(b). For the President to obtain MPD’s services for longer than 30 days—even in the face of an ongoing emergency—Congress must pass a joint resolution permitting the extension. Id. § 1-207.40(d).

Moreover, by its terms, Section 740 only permits the President to require the Mayor to “provide services” of MPD for “federal purposes.” Id. § 1-207.40(a). It does not permit the President to seize control of MPD. Nor does it authorize the President to direct MPD in the policing of local crime. Congress left that responsibility to local leaders. [MORE]

Court says Trump Had No Authority to Send Troops to LA; the Military Force Sent to Quell a Non-Existent "Rebellion" was Larger than the Number of Troops Sent to Afghanistan 3 Months after 9/11

From [HERE] federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s use of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year violated a federal law that prohibits using the military as a domestic police force.

San Francisco-based District Judge Charles Breyer issued an order blocking the federal government from using military troops in immigration raids or other law enforcement operations in California.

Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote that Trump is using the military as “a national police force with the President as its chief.”

Breyer stayed his order, which enjoins further use of troops for law enforcement tasks in California, until Sept. 12.

Trump deployed thousands of California National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in June in response to protests over his aggressive immigration raids throughout the city. 

Breyer’s decision came after a non-jury trial last month over California’s claim that military troops accompanying federal law enforcement agents during operations in and around Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the soldiers from engaging in civilian law enforcement operations.

California’s attorneys noted in the trial that the military force Trump sent to Los Angeles was larger than the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan three months after 9/11. [MORE]

Wanted: Temporary Immigration Judges, No Experience Necessary, Lots of Power to Harm People by Mistake

The U.S. Department of Justice is fighting a backlog of immigration cases by rolling back restrictions on who can be hired as temporary immigration judges and filling some of the positions with military lawyers.

Under a final rule published in the Federal Register, any attorney can serve as a temporary immigration judge, report Law360, NBC Newsand Government Executive.

Prior to the new rule, temporary immigration judges had to be former immigration judges, administrative law judges from other agencies or DOJ attorneys with 10 years of experience in immigration law.

Immigration courts overseen by the DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review decide whether noncitizens accused of violating immigration laws should be removed or granted protection from removal. The backlog in the courts was about 4.1 million cases in January 2025, according to the published final rule. More than 100 immigration judges have been fired or voluntarily resigned over the last nine months, NPR reports. [MORE]

Trump's Absurd & Unconstitutional Flag Burning Executive Order

Russia, India, China: The End of Western Power?

From [HERE] Russia, China, and India form a fundamental structure that is visibly changing the world order. Globalists have repeatedly tried to pull India over to their side, exploiting its border disputes with China. Russia, however, has always maintained excellent relations with both China and India. After the United States imposed 50% tariffs, India’s relations with Russia improved further, and at the same time a thaw began in India’s relations with China. This is precisely what multipolarity means.

The West is left only with money and currency speculation, with financial pyramids on which BlackRock rests, along with Larry Fink, the new head of the Davos Economic Forum. As soon as Russia, China, and India exit the dollar zone, the Western colossus with feet of clay will collapse.

Now it is important to transform the agreements between the three historic leaders (Putin, Xi Jinping, and Modi) into an ideology, a strategy, and a philosophy of multipolarity. This goes far beyond the level of individuals, even great ones. Multipolarity, civilizational sovereignty, and the rejection of recognizing the universality of the West (“Westernology”) must become the backbone of politics, industry, economics, education, geopolitics, and the financial system of these three countries, upon whose alliance the new world order will henceforth be built. [MORE]

The Cartels Sell Drugs to Make Money, Not to Engage in Terrorism. This is More Mission Creep to Deploy Military Forces Abroad and in the US against Citizens, Under the Guise of Fighting a War on Drugs

From [HERE] There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

Last week, the Pentagon sent three guided-missile destroyers to interdict drug cartel operations off the coast of South America, giving the U.S. Navy unprecedented counternarcotics authority and foreshadowing a potential military stand-off against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who is wanted by the United States on charges of narco-terrorism. This development is echoed by President Trump reportedly seeking authorization to deploy U.S. military forces on the ground against drug cartels in Mexico.

These efforts are not new. Trump and the GOP have increasingly called for U.S. military interdiction against Mexican drug cartels under the banner of counterterrorism. During his first administration, Trump seriously considered launching strikes at drug labs in Mexico in an effort that was successfully shut down by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

But there are no such guardrails in the new Trump administration, and the rhetoric has progressively crept toward the use of U.S. special operations, specifically. During an interview on Fox News in November, incoming Border Czar Tom Homan announced that, “[President Trump] will use the full might of the United States special operations to take [the cartels] out.”

If that is indeed the direction the administration wants to go, it appears to be taking action to set plans into motion, starting with an executive order on day one that designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — thus opening a Pandora’s box of potential legal authority to use military force. On signing the order, President Trump acknowledged, “People have been wanting to do this for years.” And when asked if he would be ordering U.S. special forces into Mexico to “take out” the cartels, Trump replied enigmatically, “Could happen … stranger things have happened.”

The executive order upholds that drug cartels “operate both within and outside the United States … [and] present an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” It declares a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The specificity of both “within and outside” the U.S. combined with the declaration of a national emergency is perhaps the first step toward the broader use of executive power to deploy military forces in counternarcotics operations not only within Mexico, but potentially the United States too. [MORE]

Venezuela Authorities Claim the US Gov Faked the So-called ‘Drug Ship Attack’ w/a Computer Generated Video

Venezuela on Wednesday rejected as fabricated a video presented by US President Donald Trump that allegedly showed an attack on a drug-laden ship off the country’s Caribbean coast.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello told state broadcaster VTV the footage appeared to be AI-generated and was being used by Washington to manipulate public opinion.

“This is the latest fabrication by the US. They want to destroy the Bolivarian revolution with lies. The White House uses drug trafficking as an argument to justify military intervention,” Cabello said.

He criticized US claims that 11 people were killed in the operation. “They proudly announce they killed 11 people. This is a very sensitive issue. What about the right to defense? Some things are not clear. Doubts are emerging, but answers are not yet visible.” [MORE]

There is No Evidence to Support Dummy Trump's Claims that 1) 'He Blew Up a Boat' Near Venezuela and 2) that 'It was a Filled with Drugs,' in Latest Transgression to Steal the Country's Oil Reserves

President Trump claimed yesterday that a boat with 11 passengers that he ordered blown up in international waters near Venezuela was a drug smuggling boat. No evidence was given. What drives the US war on Venezuela?

Israeli Soldier Confirms Soldiers Were Ordered to Stand Down on October 7th - but Can You Believe Anything a False Flaggot or Terrorcrat Says?

Peer Reviewed Study Says COVID is a Bio-Weapon Created by Fauci/US Gov and COVID Shots are Bio-Weapons Causing "Profound Harm," "Contributing to Unprecedented Levels of Morbidity and Mortality”

From [HERE] A new peer-reviewed study suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 shows signs of “deliberate engineering” and that these features, including the spike protein also found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, are responsible for widespread health harms globally.

The study, authored by 11 scientific and legal experts, was published in the fall edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The authors argue that the man-made features of SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are likely the outcome of controversial gain-of-function research, in violation of the United Nations’ Biological Weapons Convention.

Gain-of-function research, which increases the transmissibility or virulence of viruses, is frequently used in vaccine development.

According to the paper, the spread of COVID-19 — followed by the rollout of mRNA vaccines — resulted in unprecedented health harms, ranging from “autoimmune diseases and cardiovascular catastrophes to pregnancy complications and aggressive cancers.”

“Far from benign, these vaccines have unleashed profound harm, disrupting nearly every system of the human body and contributing to unprecedented levels of morbidity and mortality,” the paper states.

Dr. Andrew Zywiec, principal physician at Zywiec & Porter, is the paper’s lead author. He said the paper reveals a “pattern of harm too consistent, too pervasive to be dismissed as chance.” He added:

“The systemic toxicity unleashed by these interventions, manifesting as autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular devastation, aggressive cancers, and catastrophic reproductive harms, represents not merely a public health failure but a profound betrayal of trust.”

Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who filed a lawsuit to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida, said the paper is “extremely significant” as it is “the first peer-reviewed journal article stating that both COVID and the COVID injections violate the Biological Weapons Convention and that both COVID-19 and the COVID injections are biological weapons.”

SARS-CoV-2 virus ‘indicative of laboratory manipulation’

According to the paper, the SARS-CoV-2 virus “displays multiple genomic features indicative of laboratory manipulation,” including its furin cleavage site, which “enhances infectivity” and which is “absent in SARS-like viruses found in nature.”

Several other features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus “enhance immunological evasion and aerosol transmissibility,” making the virus “unusually durable … and five times more stable in air” than other respiratory viruses.

“These combined traits, along with the virus’s mutation patterns, are strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 could not have evolved naturally,” the paper states.

The paper cites two peer-reviewed journal articles by military scientists stating that SARS-CoV-2 contained “evidence of manipulation” that makes the virus an “attractive pathogen” due to its features, which resemble those of a biological weapon.

These manipulations “represent a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” the paper argues.

Enacted in 1975, the convention “effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons.” Nearly 200 countries have signed it.

Paper accuses Fauci of deliberately concealing SARS-CoV-2 origins

According to the paper, gain-of-function research involves “viral manipulation techniques” that can lead to the development of pathogens that are banned under the convention.

Yet, the U.S. government — particularly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci until 2022 — has long been involved in gain-of-function research, “including a long-standing collaboration between U.S.-funded institutions and the Wuhan Institute of Virology” in China.

Proponents of the “lab-leak theory” of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 argue that gain-of-function research at the Wuhan laboratory and a subsequent leak led to the global outbreak of COVID-19, which was covered up.

In April, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan lab. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and several foreign intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.

The paper refers to Project DEFUSE, a proposal the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan scientists submitted to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 2018. Although the proposal was rejected, it described the creation of coronaviruses with features that enhanced their infectivity, including the furin cleavage site.

EcoHealth Alliance and its former president, Peter Daszak, Ph.D., collaborated with Wuhan researchers. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization had failed to properly monitor risky coronavirus experiments.

The paper states that Fauci and the U.S. Intelligence Community never disclosed the existence of the research. Instead, “they obfuscated what is, in fact, proof of intent to produce a virus much like the one that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The paper cites a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference with Fauci and key virologists, including several of the co-authors of the now-infamous “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper. The paper, which promoted the natural origin of COVID-19, was published in Nature Medicine in March 2020.

Although several of the co-authors of “Proximal Origin” expressed doubts that SARS-CoV-2 developed naturally, Fauci “aimed to suppress” such concerns during the Feb. 1, 2020, call.

“Proximal Origin” became one of the most-cited papers of 2020 and has been accessed over 6 million times. In 2023, The Nation reported that over 2,000 media outlets cited the paper.

The U.S. government, the scientific community and the media subsequently used “Proximal Origin” to promote the “zoonotic” — or natural origin — theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and to discredit proponents of the “lab-leak theory.”

“The deliberate concealment of critical genomic features delayed public awareness and pandemic mitigation efforts, potentially allowing wider spread and more deaths,” the paper states.

In May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that paused gain-of-function research in the U.S. for 120 days while a new regulatory framework is developed. It also ended U.S. funding for such research in some countries.

Spike protein poses ‘potential for irreversible harm’

According to the paper’s authors, the development of SARS-CoV-2 — and the COVID-19 features that contain similar gain-of-function properties — resulted in significant harm to global public health.

The paper references statistics from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database which show a significantly increased incidence of myocarditis (151.4%), pulmonary embolism (43.6%), ovarian dysfunction (34.9%), hypertensive disease (22.9%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (14.9%), esophageal cancer (12.5%) and breast cancer (7%) in 2021, the year the COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out globally.

Additional U.S. military data cited in the paper show “persistent elevations” in myocarditis, digestive organ cancer, brain cancer and other injuries between 2022 and 2025.

Reproductive harms also significantly increased following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, the paper argues. It cites data from sources including the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), Pfizer’s 2021 post-marketing surveillance report and its Phase 2/3 clinical trial data for its COVID-19 shot, showing increased miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

The paper cites the spike protein in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as one of the likely factors for the increased incidence of cancers and other health conditions in recent years.

“Prolonged protein expression, exemplified by S1 spike protein detection more than 700 days post-COVID vaccination, underscores the potential for irreversible harm,” the paper states.

The paper argues that suppression of “proven or promising treatments” such as hydroxychloroquine in favor of universal COVID-19 vaccine mandates — and the policy decision to implement mass vaccination during the pandemic — further exacerbated global public health and had “damaging effects on public trust.” [MORE]

Israel murders journalists

World’s Leading Genocide Scholars Association says Israel Authorities are Committing Genocide in Gaza

9/1/25 Israeli occupation forces commit a new massacre The Israeli occupation has carried out deadly attacks in Gaza, killing a total of 14 Palestinians. Ten were killed when Israeli aircraft struck a residential building in Tal Al-Hawa, west of Gaza City. Meanwhile, four more were killed and others injured after Israeli aircraft hit a home in Sheikh Radwan, north of the city.

The world’s largest association of genocide scholars has concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, passing a resolution making the determination with the approval of 86% of its members.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars, which has about 500 members, said in the resolution that Israel’s “policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).”

The resolution recognized that since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the Israeli government has committed “systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

It said that Israel’s actions against Palestinians have included “torture, arbitrary detention, and sexual and reproductive violence; deliberate attacks on medical professionals, humanitarian aid workers, and journalists; and the deliberate deprivation of food, water, medicine, and electricity essential to the survival of the population.”

The resolution recognized Israeli officials making “statements of ‘intent to destroy’, characterizing Palestinians in Gaza as a whole as enemies and ‘human animals’ and stating the intention of inflicting ‘maximum damage’ on Gaza, ‘flattening Gaza,’ and turning Gaza into ‘hell.'” [MORE]

Too Much Force Again in Aurora, a City Run by Elite Liberals: A White Cop Faced a Non-Deadly Threat when He Shot an Unarmed Black Man to Death. Officer was Too Slow and Weak to Arrest or Tase Him

From [HERE] A white Aurora police officer shot and killed a Black man who allegedly ignored commands and became aggressive during a traffic stop Saturday night, according to the Aurora Police Department.

At around 7:31 p.m., the situation began as a traffic stop and crash along East 6th Avenue near Sable Boulevard, according to an Aurora police news release.

Police said an Aurora police officer, while working a DUI task force, attempted to stop a vehicle before it struck a car driving eastbound on East 6th Avenue, crossed a median then struck another vehicle traveling westbound. No motorists sustained any injuries, police said.

Police said the officer, after the crash, ordered the driver to step out of his vehicle. After a few commands, the man exited the vehicle, ignored the officer's commands, then engaged in a physical altercation, according to the police.

A viral video—already sparking outrage online—shows the Black man clearly unarmed, walking towards the officer in a fighting stance. Then suddenly—POP. POP. POP.

The officer involved reportedly fired the fatal shots within seconds, and the man died on scene. [MORE]

Andrew Napolitano: Trumps Efforts to Fight Crime are Baseless. Supreme Ct Made it Clear; Public safety Isn't a federal function, Feds Can't Supplant States or Tell Them how to Keep their Streets Safe

From [HERE] and [HERE] When President Trump decided to federalize the D.C. Metro Police Department for the 32 days permitted by the 1973 home rule statute, he attempted to supplant its lawful police chief with a federal bureaucrat, which a federal court stopped. Now, he is apparently trying to find ways to take over the police departments of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles. Can he legally do so? In a word: NO.

In two landmark cases from the mid-1990s, U.S. v. Lopez and Printz v. U.S., the Supreme Court reaffirmed the sovereignty of the states and their primacy in matters of public safety. The Court made it clear that the feds cannot tell the states how to keep their streets safe or commandeer their assets or supplant them in matters of public safety. This is Madison’s subsidiarity principle brought up to date.

While the District of Columbia is actually owned by Congress, which gave the president his 32-day window to commandeer D.C. police to assist federal functions, since public safety is not a federal function, Trump’s efforts to clean up the streets and arrest the folks he says are thugs and brawlers are without a constitutional basis.

Human freedom comes about by limiting government, not expanding it. And freedom prospers when established processes are followed. If the government can do as it wishes in the name of public safety, who will protect us from the government? [MORE]