Video Shows an Uncivilized, Masked Israeli Settler Beating an Elderly Palestinian Woman with a Club, Caused Brain Injury

A video of a Jewish settler attack on Palestinian farmers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Sunday shows a masked settler using a large club to beat an elderly Palestinian woman who was attempting to harvest olives.

Jasper Nathaniel, an American journalist who recorded the attack, said the IDF led him and a group of Palestinian farmers into a settler ambush in the village of Turmus Ayya near the central West Bank City of Ramallah, on the first day of olive harvesting season.

Nathaniel said the woman who was hit with the club was struck multiple times and beaten unconscious. According to Ihab Hassan, a Palestinian activist with the Agora Initiative, the woman “has been moved to the intensive care unit (ICU) after suffering a brain hemorrhage caused by the attack.”

The same settler also used the club to attack activists who were in the village to provide protection for the Palestinian farmers, injuring at least two of them.

Nathaniel said that the US embassy said they could do nothing when he asked for help. “If I am killed in the West Bank, please know that I blame you personally,” he wrote on X in a post addressed to US Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

“I was set up by the IDF to be attacked by 100 armed settlers. When I sent the embassy the video and asked for protection for me and everyone else in Turmus’ayya, they literally said no,” Nathaniel added. His full video report also shows settlers lighting cars on fire.

Jewish settlers also carried out attacks against olive harvesters in the nearby town of Taybeh, the last remaining West Bank village with an entirely Christian population. Sources told the Palestinian news agency WAFA that Israeli settlers severely beat at least one farmer in Taybeh. [MORE]

Unpresidential: President Trash Posts AI Video Showing him Dump Feces from a Plane on the No Kings March Protests, Attended by an Estimated 7 Million People

According to Wikipedia - The No Kings protests of October 18, 2025, were part of a series of demonstrations taking place largely in the United States against Donald Trump's policies and actions during his second presidency. The demonstrations, which followed the No Kings protests of June 2025, took place in some 2,700 locations across the country, including the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York City. Organizers estimated that the protests drew nearly 7 million attendees, roughly 2% of the entire U.S. population, which would make it the largest single-day protest in American history. [MORE] and [MORE]

Did COVID Injections Also Kill D'Angelo? New South Korean Study Demonstrates that COVID Boosters Increase the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by 125%

D'Angelo passed away on 10/14/25 without much attention from massa media. According to media reports he died from pancreatic cancer in New York City at the age of 51. A family member told People that D'Angelo had been in a hospice for two weeks, and had been hospitalized for months.

From [HERE] COVID-19 vaccines and boosters — both mRNA and non-mRNA — pose an increased risk of six types of cancer and a 27% higher risk of cancer overall, according to a recent South Korean study of over 8 million people.

Four South Korean researchers published the report last week as a letter in Biomarker Research, a Springer Nature journal.

According to the study, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are associated with a higher risk of breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer, across all vaccine types and age groups.

Mainstream medical commentators were quick to dismiss the findings, with MedPageToday describing it as “flawed.” But other medical and scientific experts disagreed.

“In plain terms: both major COVID-19 vaccine platforms appear to be carcinogenic,” epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote in a post on Substack.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a medical oncologist, told The Defender the study builds on other recent findings but “is the first to show that cDNA [non-mRNA] and mRNA vaccines are associated with cancer risk, suggesting that the spike protein is directly carcinogenic.”

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week on his YouTube show that the research marks “the largest-scale study so far” examining the association between the COVID-19 shots and cancer.

 ‘No vaccine technology was free from cancer risk’

According to the study, while the carcinogenic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 “has been hypothetically proposed,” there has been little research on the potential cancer risk from COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers said the “shared structures” contained within the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, including the spike protein, might mean that the COVID-19 shots are associated with cancer risks.

The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups.

Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including:

  • Overall cancer: 27% higher risk

  • Breast cancer: 20% higher risk

  • Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk

  • Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk

  • Lung cancer: 53% higher risk

  • Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk

  • Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk

The statistical analysis of the results showed that there is a “1 in 1,000 chance that this result arose by chance,” Campbell said.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna showed a 20% higher overall risk of cancer and were most closely linked to a higher risk of breast, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancers.

Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, known as cDNA vaccines and which include the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots, were associated with a 47% higher overall risk of cancer. They were specifically linked to an increased risk of colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers.

Patients who received a mixture of mRNA and cDNA doses also faced an increased risk, with a 34% higher incidence of cancer overall and a close association with a higher risk of breast and thyroid cancers.

“The elevated cancer risks were not confined to one vaccine platform,” Hulscher wrote. “Each vaccine type was associated with a measurable increase in overall cancer — and each had specific cancer sites driving the signal. In other words, no vaccine technology was free of cancer risk in this dataset.”

Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said the data show that among vaccinated people, the cancer risk increases with time.

“The increased risk of cancer for vaccinated subjects rises in a linear fashion over the entire period of the study, at a steeper angle than the unvaccinated curve, and it does not flatten out. The increased incidence just keeps getting bigger. It could go on for decades. It’s truly alarming,” Baker said.

‘Every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks’

The results also showed vaccinated people under 65 years of age were at particular risk of some types of cancer.

“The relatively younger population (individuals under 65 years) was more vulnerable to thyroid and breast cancers; by comparison, the older population (75 years and older) was more susceptible to prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, vaccinated people under age 65 showed an overall increased risk of cancer, while elderly adults — particularly those over 75 — had the highest overall risk.

Vaccinated women also had a relatively higher risk of cancer than vaccinated men, with vaccinated women showing a particularly increased risk of colorectal and thyroid cancers, and vaccinated men showing a higher risk of gastric and lung cancers.

Hulscher wrote:

“Both the overall and site-specific results show a consistent pattern — every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks, though the type and absolute burden varied. Women and the elderly were hit hardest, but no population segment was spared.”

The study’s results also showed that COVID-19 boosters resulted in a substantially higher risk of certain types of cancer. This included a 125% higher risk of pancreatic cancer and a 23% higher risk of gastric cancer.

Dalgleish called the numbers “striking,” saying the jump in risk after booster shots “is an unexpected increase that we are also seeing in the United Kingdom.” [MORE]

‘The More Doses You Get, The Sooner You are Likely to Die’: Japanese Data Suggest COVID Shots Led to Surge in Excess Deaths, Killing People Now

From [HERE] People who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated, according to an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people. The data, not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, is impressive in size, but requires further analysis, said CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski.

People who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated, and the risk increased with each additional dose, according to an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people.

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., examined the data on his YouTube show this week. The data were originally released in June as part of a roundtable discussion, which was streamed onlineand led by Yasufumi Murakami, Ph.D., vice director of the Research Center for RNA Science at the Tokyo University of Science.

“The more doses you get, the sooner you are likely to die, within a shorter period,” Murakami said during the roundtable.

In his analysis, Campbell said deaths in the vaccinated group were up to four-and-a-half times higher than in the unvaccinated group. The data also showed that deaths among the vaccinated peaked between 90-120 days after vaccination, with the peak occurring sooner as the number of doses increased.

“If someone had had three doses, the peak might be after about … 120 days,” Campbell said. “But if they had four or five doses, the peak in deaths would be earlier, maybe about 90 days.”

The risk of death in vaccinated people remained elevated for the first year following vaccination, “significantly so for the first 240 days,” whereas for unvaccinated people, “no peak forms, which is the expected” outcome, Campbell said.

Japanese data indicate causal link between vaccinations, excess deaths

In his presentation, Murakami said the data show a clear causal link between vaccinations and excess deaths. Campbell agreed, noting that the excess deaths were “probably due to the vaccine’s influence, with adverse reactions occurring leading to death.”

“If the vaccine had no toxicity or didn’t induce death, there wouldn’t be a peak. That’s the point,” Campbell said.

According to immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., the spike protein in mRNA COVID-19vaccines, such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna, is likely a contributing factor to the higher death rate among the vaccinated.

She said:

“The spike protein is highly inflammatory and induces powerful immune reactions against affected cells. Cells transfected and producing spike protein are targeted for destruction, and since the lipid nanoparticles assure any cell can be a spike-producer, including heart cells, it explains much of cardiac-associated deaths.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, agreed.

“The spike protein is a toxic component of SARS-CoV-2, and unanimously the antigen of choice for all mRNA vaccines,” he said. “The mRNA technology has many components that may be a driving force for increases in excess deaths.”

According to Rose, lipid nanoparticles, which help deliver mRNA throughout the body, can also cause blood clotting, contributing to adverse health events and deaths.

“Many components of the mRNA platform can facilitate disease and death,” Jablonowski said. This includes DNA contaminants that have been identified in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which he said “may trigger a deleterious immune response.”

Jablonowski said the Japanese dataset, which has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, requires further analysis:

“Though 18 million is an impressive number, the size of the dataset doesn’t make it good science — the control does. Without detailed data, it is impossible to distinguish between vaccination-induced death or death of those more likely to be vaccinated.”

But if the dataset includes data for “millions of people within the same narrow age range, the same comorbidity grouping and no difference in confounders” and shows elevated death rates for these groups, then the Japanese data would be enough to “sink the mRNA platform worldwide,” Jablonowski said.

Albert Benavides, founder of VAERSaware.com, has analyzed the Japanese data on his Substack page and in an online dashboard he developed. He said the data “appears to be very sound and in line to what appears and what does not appear in VAERS.”

VAERS is the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

“Japan (2,396 deaths) sits at second place, only behind Germany (2,709 deaths), as the foreign country with the most COVID-19 deaths in VAERS,” Benavides said.

Data ‘enough to raise questions in the minds of all regulators’

The Japanese data are “enough to raise questions in the minds of all regulators for all mRNA products,” Campbell said, though he doesn’t expect it will.

Many researchers have focused their examination of vaccine-related adverse events on the first days following vaccination, he noted. “When it’s been 90 days, 120 days, they kind of lost interest and don’t make the link anymore.”

Yet, the Japanese data confirm findings of other studies that examined the longer-term effects of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

In a March interview, Campbell spoke with Robert Clancy, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle’s School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy in Australia, who is reviewing data from a separate dataset that indicates a peak in excess deaths three months after vaccination.

In a May analysis, Campbell examined excess death figures from Our World in Data for 20 countries. The data showed that excess deaths remain high in most Western countries — where mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were widely administered — but are lower in countries where mRNA vaccines were less commonly used.

A 2023 analysis by Phinance Technologies found that, in the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines caused more than 300,000 excess deaths, injured 26.6 million people, disabled 1.36 million people, and cost an estimated $147 billion in damage in 2022 alone.

According to a 2023 report in InsuranceNewsNet, U.S. insurance companies expected higher-than-normal payouts from excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Insurers saw death benefits rise 15.4% in 2020, the biggest one-year increase since the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, followed by a record $100.28 billion — nearly double the historic norm — in total death benefits paid out by the industry in 2021.

A paper published in April in the JMA Journal, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japan Medical Association, found that Japan had “the world’s highest rate” of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses per capita — and “a significant increase in excess deaths in 2022 and 2023.”

“Although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these phenomena, the truth remains to be established because sufficient studies and data disclosures have not been conducted to adequately investigate the possible contribution of mRNA vaccines,” the paper stated. [MORE]

Racist Liberal Prosecutors and Cops in Chicago Using Minor Traffic Stops to Wrongfully Detain and Charge Black Gun Owners w/Felony Possession, Despite Knowing They are Licensed to Carry Firearms

From [HERE] An investigation by CBS News Chicago uncovered several times where police stopped Black gun owners for minor traffic violations and then charged them with felonies -- even though they had legal firearm licenses. 

The findings prompted a rebuke from the National African American Gun Association. The ordeal also led to an exhausting toll and financial strain on the drivers. They had valid firearm licenses, but because of their arrests, spent months fighting to get charges dropped and expunged from their records.  

Some have sued, or plan to sue Chicago police, accusing the department of violating their civil rights.   

If you believe you were wrongly arrested despite having valid firearm licenses, tell us here or fill out the survey at the bottom of this story.

"My rights were violated" 

One of those drivers is 46-year-old Louis McWilliams, a Tinley Park resident who owns a local cheesecake company, Ann's Flavored Cheesecakes. He was charged with a felony in April after being pulled over on Chicago's South Side on his way to a business meeting. The case was later dismissed.

"This has been very traumatic for me," McWilliams said. "I feel like my rights were violated." 

When Chicago police stopped him on West 79th Street, they told him he had a missing front license plate, according to the arrest report. Police body camera video shows that after the police stopped him, the first thing he did was tell the officers he had a gun in the car. 

According to Illinois state law, in order to legally carry a gun in your car, you need a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card and a concealed carry license (CCL). CBS News Chicago reviewed McWilliams' firearm license and confirmed it was valid. 

The arrest report also acknowledged he was in possession of his card at the time of the stop. McWilliams can even be seen handing it to the officer in the video, and he said he was expecting that to be enough. But it wasn't.  

When an officer pulls over a driver, it's standard practice to check a database operated by the Illinois State Police, called LEADS. If the driver has a gun on them, or in the car, it's also common for officers to check LEADS to verify the FOID and CCL are valid. In McWilliams' case, the officer told him the CCL didn't appear on the database.  

Police cited that as a justification for his arrest, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office approved two felony charges: aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon, and unlawful use of a weapon.  

"This shows that no matter how much you follow a system of which they create, they can still deem you wrong," McWilliams said. "I feel like that's unfair."

"I think they made a quick, hasty, improper decision on this case," said Irv Miller, CBS News Chicago's legal analyst. A former prosecutor once in charge of reviewing police cases, Miller also believes McWilliams never should have been charged.  

"He showed [police] a valid CCL card," Miller said. "Not only did they see it, they actually took possession of it and inventoried it, gave it a Chicago Police Department inventory number, and sent it off to headquarters." 

It's also unclear why the information was not in LEADS, or why the officers chose to arrest Williams. A spokesperson with the state police would not comment on specific cases but said if an officer is unable to check the status of a FOID or CCL in LEADS, "the officer should not take any law enforcement actions as it relates to a potential FOID/CCL violation."  

CCL law in Illinois also indicates physical or digital cards are sufficient if a driver is stopped. The law does not specify that the information must also be in the state's system to be deemed valid.   

"The statute says if you present to an officer a valid FOID card, and you also have a valid CCL, that means you're not in violation of the law if you're carrying a gun," Miller said.  

CPD Supt. Larry Snelling declined to be interviewed for this story. A spokesperson for the department would not answer questions via email about the circumstances of McWilliams' arrest. 

In the body camera video, an officer can be heard telling McWilliams that if further checks into his license came back clean, "Then they just let you go, apologize and let you go about your day." But that's not what happened. McWilliams spent a day in jail.  

"It was just deplorable. There were a thousand-plus fruit flies flying around in every holding cell," he said. "There were roaches falling from the ceiling." 

And immediately McWilliams felt the impact on his cheesecake business. He said he had a meeting related to his he day he was stopped. Because he was arrested, he couldn't make the meeting and said he lost a deal with a major franchise.  

McWilliams also lost time. He spent months in court fighting to get the felony charges dismissed and his impounded car returned. It wasn't until mid-June, three months after he was arrested, that the charges were dropped. 

There's still a long road ahead for McWilliams. He's working to get the charges expunged from his record, so they don't show up in a background check.  

A pattern of accusations 

It's nearly impossible to know how many drivers are wrongfully charged with unlawful gun possession, only to have the charges dismissed. Neither CPD nor the Cook County State's Attorney's Office track this specific data. But CBS News Chicago found three other cases, including two lawsuits, accusing police of violating the rights of legal gun owners in similar situations.  

One of them was filed by Lucy Washington, a real estate agent and single mother of two who lives in Chicago. She told CBS News Chicago that she carries a gun for protection.  

In December 2023, CPD stopped her for failing to use her turn signal. Within minutes of being stopped, Washington told the officers she's a gun owner with a CCL, body camera video of her arrest shows.  

The officer told Washington that when police ran her information, the state database showed her CCL was expired. But Washington had just renewed it before she was stopped, according to records obtained by CBS News Chicago.  

The video shows she tried several times to show police an email she received from state police explaining her pending CCL renewal. But the officers wouldn't accept it and arrested her anyway.  

The Cook County State's Attorney's Office approved a felony charge of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. 

"I freaked out, especially when I was told that I was going to being charged with a felony," Washington said. "I was like, I can lose my broker license." 

State law says if someone has submitted an application for renewal, they are eligible to possess a license. But a spokesperson for state police said CCL holders are not covered if they apply after their CCL expires. This is not outlined explicitly in state law, or communicated to the public by state police.

Washington said she had renewed two days after her CCL expired. State police wouldn't say whether they would add language in future correspondence to CCL holders clarifying this point. 

Like McWilliams, Washington's felony charge was eventually dismissed. She also spent time and money on legal fees to get her case expunged.  

"You're picking on somebody coming home from work or someone downtown enjoying our beautiful city, who isn't doing anything criminal, who isn't doing anything suspicious, and placing them in jail. And that's the problem. That's where the breakdown in trust comes," said Brandon Brown, Washington's attorney.  

"This is a law-abiding citizen. This is a gainful member of our community. It interrupts and breaks down the trust between the community and law enforcement, which should be a concern of everyone." 

Washington said she is still traumatized from what happened, and it's affected her real estate business. 

"If you search a property that is in my name, my mugshot shows up next to it. It's embarrassing," Washington said. "How do I explain to someone, oh no, I was innocent?" 

"Not again"  

Phil Smith, founder and president of the National African American Gun Association, is seeing Black gun ownership rise across the country over the last several years.  

In response to a heightened desire to protect themselves, he said, there's been an increase of members in his own group, which now has more than 50,000 people. The association provides training and education on gun ownership and has trained more than 15,000 people how to shoot in the last three years alone.  

"They were just coming in starving for somebody, or some organization that fed that need of being, belonging, of them feeling comfortable," Smith said.

Smith said he was frustrated, but not surprised, to learn drivers in Chicago are being charged with felonies despite having valid firearm licenses. 

"Outrage, anger, frustration, not again," Smith said. "Those are the conversations and statements that are going in my head when I hear about another Black person being stopped illegally, being arrested illegally, when they've had all their stuff together." 

While there is no data that tracks race in these types of gun arrests, Smith referred to the history of Black people with guns being unjustly killed by police, including high profile cases like Philando Castile, Duante Wright and 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was shot and killed by police while holding a toy gun. 

"But if you look at other communities, they have firearms all over the place and it's OK," Smith said. "They walk in the store with them in open-carry cities. They go to Macy's. They go to Walmart. They go shoot and hunt, and it's OK." 

Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke declined to be interviewed for this story about her office's decision to approve charges against Washington and McWilliams. In a statement, a spokesperson said "the initial evidence at the time supported approval of felony charges." But they were dismissed because "additional information became available" in court, but they would not specify what that was. 

The spokesperson also would not say what initial evidence was presented by police that supported approval of felony charges. Miller questioned why the assistant state's attorneys didn't investigate the police evidence further before approving the charges. 

"It's frankly a legal tragedy when you put somebody through that, make that person spend 24 hours in jail, make this person hire a lawyer, make him sit with a felony case hanging over his head for two months," Miller said. "It's just not the way the system is supposed to work. Felony review should've weeded this case out at day one." 

Smith urged Black gun owners who've gone through something similar to not feel discouraged from exercising their Second Amendment rights, and to take legal action if they feel they've been wrongfully arrested. 

"We will not let someone tell us, or intimidate us, into not carrying a firearm," he said. "That's something that I refuse to accept." 

Since his arrest, McWilliams has been struggling to rebuild his cheesecake business. He blames police for the setback and now plans to sue CPD. 

"I just feel like the rights that I've been given, the constitutional rights to have [my firearm], that the police officers didn't stand up for," McWilliams said. "I didn't feel like they did their due diligence. They didn't do something to prove my innocence. It was just me being guilty."  

Williams has not received his gun back from CPD. And despite a court order from a judge, neither has Washington.  
She filed her own lawsuit in December 2024, accusing Chicago police of false arrest, illegal search and seizure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other counts. Chicago Police declined to comment on Washington's arrest, citing pending litigation. 

"I felt defeated, you know?" Washington said. "I felt defeated, and I felt like nobody had my back." [MORE]

A Right, Not a Privilege: Why Every Gun Law Is an Infringement

From [HERE] Let’s be clear: the Second Amendment doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed… unless the government says otherwise.” It doesn’t carve out exceptions for background checks, waiting periods, or fees. The right to bear arms is exactly that. It’s a right. Not a privilege, not a maybe, and not a “we’ll see.” ‘Keep’ means you can have them, and ‘bear’ means there’s probably at least one on me right now.

Yet here we are, so conditioned to government overreach that we jump through hoops just to exercise something that was never the government’s to regulate in the first place.

We’ve allowed politicians and bureaucrats, many who have never even held a gun, to place a chokehold on our Second Amendment rights. From red flag laws to magazine capacity restrictions, gun-free zones, and mandatory background checks, the list of infringements keeps growing. And somehow, we’ve accepted this. We’ve let them turn a God-given right into a permission slip. Isn’t the government supposed to serve us? Isn’t government overreach and slimy bureaucrats the reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place? Now they regulate it?

Take Hawaii, for instance. Here’s a state that says we recognize the 2nd Amendment, we just don’t allow it in our state. They say, “the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed, except for every privately owned public space in the state.”

Let’s revisit the reason we have the 2nd Amendment to begin with. It wasn’t written for deer hunters. It wasn’t about paper targets. The Founders drafted it to ensure that “We the People” had the means to keep a tyrannical government in check. That’s right, to override it if necessary. So how is it that today, we let the very institution the 2nd Amendment was meant to restrain decide how much of it we’re allowed to keep?

It didn’t happen all at once. It was one small restriction after another. A background check here, a magazine capacity limit there. “Common sense” gun laws, they told us. And we gun owners, patriots, citizens, too often just went along with it. Now, we live in a culture where these infringements have become normal, if not expected. That’s the real danger. We’re no longer throwing the tyrants in jail; we’re debating with them about how much of our rights we have to give up.

Imagine James Madison walking into a modern gun shop. He watches an American citizen fill out forms, hand over ID, and wait for government approval to buy a firearm. What do you think he’d say? He’d be furious and he’d be embarrassed that we squandered such an important component of our freedom.

And yet, we barely flinch. In some states, we even need permission to buy ammunition. We obediently wait days or even months to find out if we’re “allowed” to take home a firearm. In too many cases, that delay becomes a death sentence. [MORE]

Illinois Judge issues order barring warrantless arrests of court attendees

A judge in Illinois prohibited civil arrests of court attendees absent a judicial warrant or judicial order on Tuesday.

Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans of the Circuit Court of Cook County issued a General Administrative Order that bars civil arrests unrelated to court business for individuals traveling to, present in, or leaving court proceedings in the county. The order applies to all arrests made in courthouses and their vicinity in Cook County, as the order defines “courthouse” as any building where the Circuit Court of Cook County conducts court, and “environs” as the area surrounding each courthouse, including entryways, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots.

When announcing the order, Chief Judge Evans stated, “Access to justice depends on every individual’s ability to appear in court without fear or obstruction. Our courthouses remain places where all people—regardless of their background or circumstance—should be able to safely and confidently participate in the judicial process.”

While the order does not name specific agencies, its terms reach civil arrests by federal immigration authorities at court facilities, effectively requiring US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to obtain a judicial warrant before making such arrests at Cook County courthouses or adjacent areas. Local media characterized the directive as barring ICE civil arrests at county court facilities.

The order cited longstanding common-law principles protecting court participants from civil arrest, echoing similar protections adopted in New York after federal courthouse enforcement actions drew criticism. The state adopted the Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) in 2020, which is similar in scope to what Cook County’s order asserts. [MORE]

Federal Judge Extends Block on the Unlawful Use of National Guard Troops in Portland

A US federal judge on Wednesday extended a block on federally-deployed National Guard troops from entering Portland, Oregon.

The extension acts as a temporary measure, until October 29, when a three-day bench trial is scheduled to determine if a longer block is necessary. The state also awaits an opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who, during a oral arguments on October 9, expressed doubt in a district court’s ability to block this type of executive action.

The initial orders responded to a lawsuit filed by Oregon and the city of Portland on September 29 against President Donald Trump and his administration, seeking a temporary block of National Guard troops into the city. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, issued the initial blocking order on October 4.

Trump responded the next day by calling in Texas National Guard troops instead; however, Immergut expanded the original order to block federalized troops from other states as well.

Immergut has stated that Trump did not have authority to federalize National Guard troops because the president can only do so if there is a invasion from a foreign nation or if there is a rebellion or event that inhibits the president from carrying out federal laws with local police. The judge held that the circumstances in Portland did not meet that threshold, stating, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

Trump’s order for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, to deploy National Guard troops to Portland was triggered in part by a protest outside of Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building. The demonstration came from growing tensions between Portland citizens and the administration’s recent use of ICE.

Trump has spoken of and attempted to federalize National Guard troops in cities across the country with varying degrees of pushback and success. Other cities include Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis and Austin. [MORE]

Federal Judge Orders Uncontrollable ICE-Hole Cops to Wear Body Cameras in Chicago

From [HERE] US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to wear body cameras during enforcement activity, and all interactions with the public.  This new order follows a Temporary Restraining Order(TRO) by Judge Ellis last week, and will now be in effect until November 6.

Judge Ellis reasoned that this modified restraining order was required because she doubted ICE’s compliance with the original TRO.  She said that said she was a “little startled” after seeing news coverage of ICE actions that seemed to violate the order, adding: “I live in Chicago if folks haven’t noticed. And I’m not blind.”

The TRO enjoins ICE from using riot control weapons, including less-lethal shotguns, 40 mm Munitions Launchers, pepper balls, and tear gas, against protestors and journalists unless necessary to prevent harm.  In those circumstances, the order required ICE to give at least two warnings and a reasonable opportunity to comply.  The order specifically enjoined ICE from using force against journalists unless ICE had probable cause to believe that the journalists has committed a crime.

Additionally, Ellis has ordered witnesses from ICE to appear to provide testimony to the Court on apparent violations of the original TRO. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Incident Commander Kyle C. Harvick and ICE Deputy Field Office Director Shawn Byers are scheduled to appear in court on Monday.

The TRO was in response to a class action suit against the Department of Homeland Security, filed by journalist groups and protestors, on October 6.  They alleged that the federal government was interfering with their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiff journalists alleged that agents have engaged in a “pattern of extreme brutality” as part of a “concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians.” The suit states that federal agents used flash grenades, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and paintballs against the protestors, causing injuries. The suit also says that protestors and journalists have been detained for hours.

Millions Pack the Streets for National "No Kings" March [“Rule for the People” by a King or by a Mobbocracy of Idiots Makes No Difference, it is “Benevolent Slavery.” Why Have Any Master?]

The No Kings protests of October 18, 2025, were part of a series of demonstrations taking place largely in the United States against Donald Trump's policies and actions during his second presidency. The demonstrations, which followed the No Kings protests of June 2025, took place in some 2,700 locations across the country, including the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York City. Organizers estimated that the protests drew nearly 7 million attendees, roughly 2% of the entire U.S. population,[11] which would make it the largest single-day protest in American history. [MORE] and [MORE]

I see no good in having several masters;
Let one alone be master, let one alone be king
.

These words Homer puts in the mouth of Ulysses,[1] as he addresses the people. Had he said nothing else than

I see no good in having several masters,

it would have been well spoken. For the sake of logic he should have maintained that the rule of several could not be good since the power of one man alone, as soon as he acquires the title of master, becomes abusive and unreasonable. Instead he declared what seems preposterous:

“Let one alone be master, let one alone be king.”

We must not be critical of Ulysses, who at the moment was perhaps obliged to speak these words in order to quell a mutiny in the army, for this reason, in my opinion, choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Yet, in the light of reason, it is a great misfortune to be at the beck and call of one master, for it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be kind, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As for having several masters, according to the number one has, it amounts to being that many times unfortunate. Although I do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated question, namely whether other types of government are preferable to monarchy,[2] still I should like to know, before casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths, whether or not it belongs to such a group, since it is hard to believe that there is anything of common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. This question, however, can remain for another time and would really require a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts of political discussion.

For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him.[3] Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants,[4] one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.

Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it. Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he may do evil. Certainly while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed.

But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name? [MORE]

Barbaric Israeli Authorities Launch Wave of Heavy Airstrikes Across Gaza, Murdering 35 (means at least 350) and Fired a Tank Shell(s) at a Bus (means Buses) Moving People Back to Gaza City

The Israeli military launched heavy airstrikes across Gaza on Sunday, killing at least 35 Palestinians, marking the deadliest day of Israeli attacks in the Strip since the ceasefire went into effect on October 10.

The IDF stepped up its attacks on Gaza after alleging its troops were attacked by Palestinian militants in Rafah, southern Gaza, calling it a “violation” of the ceasefire, though reports indicate an explosion was caused by an Israeli vehicle running over an unexploded bomb.

Hamas denied responsibility for the incident in Rafah on Sunday, saying it hasn’t been in contact with its fighters in the area. “We confirm our full commitment to carrying out everything that was agreed, first and foremost the ceasefire in all areas of the Gaza Strip,” Hamas’s armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, said in a statement.

“We have no knowledge of any incidents or clashes taking place in the Rafah area, since these are red zones under occupation control, and contact with what remains of our groups there has been cut off since the war resumed in March of this year. We have no information on whether they have been killed or are still alive since that date,” al-Qassam added.

Israeli officials said later in the day that two IDF soldiers were killed in the attack. According to Haaretz, Israeli military officials said they thought militants fired on Israeli troops after exiting a tunnel, but other reports contradict the claim.

Curt Mills, the Executive Director of The American Conservative, wrote on X that a senior Trump administration official told him: “Hamas did nothing. Israeli tank hit an unexploded IED that has probably been there for months.”

Ryan Grim, a reporter for Drop Site News, reported something similar. “Soon after the explosion in Rafah, I’m told by a source familiar, the White House and Pentagon knew that the incident was caused by an Israeli settler bulldozer running over unexploded ordnance — contradicting Netanyahu’s claim that Hamas had popped up from tunnels,” he wrote on X. [MORE]

Also, Israeli forces killed 11 members of a Palestinian family attempting to return to their home in the flattened Gaza Strip on Friday evening in what local officials said was the deadliest violation of the shaky weeklong ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Gaza Civil Defense spokesman Mahmoud Basal said that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops fired a tank shell at a bus transporting members of the Abu Shaaban family, who were trying to return to inspect their home in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City. Among the 11 victims were three women and seven children ages 5-13. [MORE]

America Not Made Safer or Greater; DHS Data Shows that Out of More than 1,000 People Arrested and Detained in Chicago, Only 10 had Criminal Records. Nationally 70% Held by ICE Have No Criminal Record

From [HERE] Operation Midway Blitz, a campaign the U.S. Department of Homeland Security launched Sept. 8 claimed it would target “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens” in the area.

But the government’s own data and detentions like that of Rosales — a mother of three who has no apparent criminal record — cast serious doubt on whether that’s really the mission.

On Oct. 3, DHS announced that since the operation began in September, more than 1,000 undocumented migrants had been arrested across Chicago and its suburbs — “including the worst of the worst pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.” However, the agency provided detailed information for only 10 men with a criminal background, about 1% of those detained, making independent verification difficult.

In one particularly jarring raid, on Sept. 30 federal agents with Black Hawk helicopters and military-type vehicles descended on an apartment complex in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood. DHS said the location was “known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua members,” a Venezuelan criminal gang targeted by the Trump administration.

According to DHS, 37 people were arrested during the operation; however, only eight of them were confirmed to have a criminal record — and that includes crimes ranging from aggravated battery to retail theft. The agency did not say whether any of those cases resulted in convictions.

In other words, while the administration says it is disrupting transnational gang activity, the bulk of those detained seem to have no serious record. In fact, federal data shows that over 70% of detainees who were being held as of last month by Immigration and Customs Enforcement nationally had no criminal convictions. [MORE]

LA City Attorney and LAPD Sought to Lift an Injunction on the Police Use of Force Against Journalists Ahead of Protests in City Controlled by Elite Liberals

In a unanimous vote on Friday morning, LA City Council put a halt to City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s attempt to lift an injunction on LAPD’s use of force against journalists. The City Attorney’s office withdrew their misguided motion the same day.

On October 16, LAist reported that the Los Angeles Police Department and the City Attorney’s Office had petitioned to lift the order ahead of the No Kings protests planned for the weekend. The emergency motion by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez directed the City Attorney to withdraw their filing, describing the attempt as “a waste of city resources and against the will of Angelenos at large.”

The federal injunction was issued in September by Judge Hernan Vera in response to a lawsuit by the Los Angeles Press Club over LAPD’s violent response to pro-immigrant protests in June and July, when LAPD intentionally targeted members of the press with projectiles despite their visible identification. Judge Vera described the lawsuit as “the latest chapter in a long and unfortunate saga of the LAPD’s use of unlawful force against members of the media.”

“City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s support for lifting the injunction barring the LAPD’s use of force against journalists covering protests, while unsurprising, is wholly oppositional to bedrock principles of democracy, including a free press and the public’s right to be informed about matters of public interest,” said National Lawyers Guild LA board member Carie Martin. “We are heartened to know that the City Council is prepared to act swiftly to ensure that journalists are not subject to state violence while fulfilling this vital democratic function.” National Lawyers Guild members are representing multiple protesters in lawsuits stemming from LAPD violence during this summer’s protests.

Police violence against the media has been a consistent pattern by LAPD and has resulted in many expensive settlements by the city. The request by Feldstein Soto was, in essence, to grant court permission for LAPD to continue that violence and the chilling effect on reporting that comes with it.

“While the federal government wages a campaign of fear against immigrants, our responsibility is to protect Angelenos — not to greenlight more violence against those who tell their stories” said Councilmember Hernandez in a statement to the press, hailing the vote as standing with journalism and the truth. [MORE] and [MORE]

1 Nation Under Guard: Like Rats, ICE Race Soldiers are Running Around Neighborhoods, Churches, Hospitals, Bus Stops and Schools Preying On and Snatching Up Non-White People w/Impunity

From [HERE] “Brother, I am American. You are twisting my arm.”— Man shouts “I am American” while ICE agents detain him

Masked gunmen. Tasers. Tear gas. Pepper spray. Unmarked vehicles. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Racial profiling. Children traumatized. Families terrorized. Journalists targeted. Citizens detained. Disabled individuals, minors, the elderly, pregnant women, military veterans—snatched off the streets. Private property destroyed.

This is not a war zone.

This is what now passes for law-and-order policing by ICE agents in Trump’s America—and it is not making America safer or greater.

What began as an agency tasked with enforcing immigration law has metastasized into a domestic terror force.

From coast to coast, ICE goon squads—incognito, thuggish, fueled by profit-driven incentives and outlandish quotas, and empowered by the Trump administration to act as if they are untouchable—are prowling neighborhoods, churches, courthouses, hospitals, bus stops, and worksites, anywhere “suspected” migrants might be present, snatching people first and asking questions later.

Sometimes “later” comes hours, days or even weeks afterwards.

No one is off limits—not even American citizens.

Make no mistake: this is not how a constitutional republic operates. It is how a dictatorship behaves when it decides the rule of law—in this case, the Bill of Rights—is optional. Journalists are being shoved to the pavement, forced into chokeholds, teargassed, and brutalized—in violation of the First Amendment. U.S. citizens, including toddlers, are being snatched up and carted off—in violation of the Fourth Amendment. People with no criminal records who have lived, worked and paid taxes in this country for decades are being made to disappear—in violation of habeas corpus.

This is not public safety. It is domestic terrorism, carried out by masked, militarized, lawless bounty hunters.

Each of these incidents is presented as routine immigration enforcement. Yet collectively they reveal a government agency that has abandoned the principles of restraint, accountability, and due process in favor of brute force.

Justifying extreme measures—martial law, mass surveillance, suspension of constitutional safeguards— as necessary for “national security” has always been the refuge of tyrants, and this American police state is no different.

Under Trump, however, things are so much worse.

The rationalizations have become bolder, the violence more normalized, and the lies more transparent.

The biggest lie of all is the Department of Homeland Security’s claim that its costly, ego-driven, and unnecessary military invasion of Chicago—Operation Midway Blitz—rounded up “the worst of the worst pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.”

In fact, DHS’ own data shows that out of more than 1,000 people rounded up, only 10 had criminal records.

Nationally, more than 70% of individuals rounded up by ICE nationally have no criminal convictions. Many have lived in the U.S. for decades, raised families, paid taxes, contributed to the economy, and worked the jobs most Americans refuse to do. [MORE]

Gavin Newsom Signs Amendments to California’s Racial Justice Act into Law

From [HERE] On October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the lat­est set of amend­ments to California’s Racial Justice Act (CRJA) into law, strength­en­ing a ground­break­ing piece of leg­is­la­tion that pro­hibits crim­i­nal con­vic­tions and sen­tences based on race, eth­nic­i­ty, or nation­al ori­gin. Under this law, cap­i­tal­ly con­vict­ed pris­on­ers can pur­sue mean­ing­ful relief, beyond just the rever­sal of a death sen­tence, if the state is found to have vio­lat­ed these protections.

When California’s RJA was first passed in 2020, leg­is­la­tors expressed their inten­tion for the law to be inter­pret­ed as a ​“rejec­tion” of the 1987 United States Supreme Court deci­sion in McCleskey v. Kemp, a rul­ing which refused to accept pow­er­ful sta­tis­ti­cal dis­par­i­ties as evi­dence of racial dis­crim­i­na­tion and forced defen­dants to prove that the alleged racism or bias was pur­pose­ful. Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D‑San Jose), the CRJA’s pri­ma­ry author, said the law serves as a ​“coun­ter­mea­sure” to McCleskey, argu­ing that the deci­sion ​“estab­lished an unrea­son­ably high stan­dard for vic­tims of racism in the crim­i­nal legal sys­tem that is almost impos­si­ble to meet with­out direct proof that the racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry behav­ior was con­scious, delib­er­ate and tar­get­ed.” Under the CRJA, sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence is enough for a defen­dant to bring a case. 

The CRJA has been amend­ed once before, in 2022, to make the law retroac­tive. The lat­est amend­ments to the CRJA clar­i­fy the min­i­mum thresh­old a defen­dant must meet to bring a claim, expand eli­gi­bil­i­ty for appoint­ed coun­sel for indi­gent death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers, make it eas­i­er for pris­on­ers to obtain ear­ly dis­cov­ery, and require courts to pro­vide a rem­e­dy when a vio­la­tion is found, poten­tial­ly even dis­miss­ing the charges. [MORE]

Dummy Trump Also Ignoring the 2nd Amendment for His Masters: Major Gun Rights Group Calls for Pam Bondi’s Immediate Termination as Attorney General

From [HERE] Nine months into her tenure, Attorney General Pam Bondi faces a bombshell challenge from one of America’s most influential gun rights organizations, which now demands her immediate termination for failing to protect constitutional freedoms.

On October 10, 2025, the National Association for Gun Rights called on President Trump to fire his top law enforcement official for what they call systematic betrayals of Second Amendment rights.

The bombshell announcement represents a dramatic escalation in tensions between gun rights advocates and the Trump administration’s Justice Department. NAGR is one of America’s most vocal Second Amendment organizations. As one of the loudest no-compromise organizations in the United States, NAGR pulled no punches in their scathing assessment of Bondi’s nine-month tenure, declaring that she has “failed the Second Amendment” and must go immediately.

The final straw came when Bondi’s DOJ successfully obtained a federal court order forcing two major gun rights organizations to hand over their complete membership lists to the federal government. The October 7th ruling in Reese v. ATF requires the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition to provide verified member lists, including names, addresses, and contact information, creating what gun advocates view as a dangerous government registry.

The membership list controversy serves as the culmination of what NAGR describes as a pattern of anti-gun actions under Bondi’s leadership. Despite Trump’s executive orders directing reviews of gun regulations, Bondi’s DOJ continues defending Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule, which effectively creates universal background checks for private gun sales. The DOJ has spent months “reviewing” the rule while simultaneously enforcing it against law-abiding gun owners and asking courts to delay legal challenges that could provide relief.

NAGR’s indictment extends to Bondi’s Supreme Court positions, where her DOJ has actively opposed restoring gun rights to nonviolent felons in Vincent v. Bondi and has worked to undermine pro-Second Amendment court rulings regarding 18-20 year olds’ rights to purchase handguns. NAGR points out the cruel irony that military-aged adults old enough to fight and die for America cannot legally purchase handguns thanks to positions Bondi’s DOJ continues to defend. [MORE]