‘Worldwide Increase in Cancer is No Surprise.’ Comprehensive Study Finds “Smoking Gun” Evidence COVID Injections Trigger Cancers

From [HERE] A systematic review of 69 studies and reports on COVID-19 and cancer identified a possible safety signal linking COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 to certain types of cancer.

The study identified safety signals for leukemia, lymphoma, breast and lung cancer. The authors of the paper, published last week in the journal Oncotarget, said their findings suggest the need for further research.

The paper identified mechanisms — including the spike protein and DNA contamination found in some COVID-19 vaccine types — that might be responsible for triggering cancer.

The authors also addressed “several recurrent themes” in the studies they examined:

• The “unusually rapid progression, recurrence, or reactivation” of preexisting conditions.

• The “atypical” appearance of cancers near the point of vaccination.

• The reactivation of dormant tumors.

Wafik El-Deiry, M.D., Ph.D., one of the co-authors, told The Defender that the paper “is the first most comprehensive presentation summarizing the world‘s literature on the subject matter of COVID vaccines, COVID infection and cancer.”

He said some of the review’s findings “look like a smoking gun” linking COVID-19 shots to cancer.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the review’s findings may represent “the tip of a very damaging iceberg.”

“It is not remotely surprising that a gene-therapy rebranded as a vaccine, never tested for oncogenic safety, with severe immune dysregulating effects, injected into a billion people would correlate with an increased risk of cancers worldwide,” Jablonowski said.

El-Deiry said the review may provide insights into rising cancer rates in recent years, including an increase in so-called “turbo cancers.”

“I believe there is a risk of cancer associated with COVID vaccination,” El-Deiry said. “The magnitude of the risk remains to be more precisely defined, including the risk of hyperprogression.” Hyperprogression refers to cases where “a pre-existing tumor grows more aggressively.”

“The paper doesn’t say that COVID vaccines cause cancer, but it does argue that when the same pattern of aggressive cancer keeps appearing across different cancers and different countries, they can no longer be brushed aside,” investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., said in a video posted Monday on Substack.

Review found link between COVID vaccines, aggressive onset of cancer

According to the review, a “growing number of peer-reviewed publications” have reported the appearance of diverse cancer types following COVID-19 vaccination or infection.

The time between vaccination and the onset of cancers “varied substantially,” according to the review, ranging from within 2-4 weeks to 8 months or more after vaccination or administration of a booster dose.

The authors said they conducted the review because the COVID-19 vaccines were never evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.

They reviewed studies conducted between January 2020 and October 2025. About 43% of the studies “reported lymphoid malignancies, encompassing both lymphomas and leukemias.”

Several studies emphasized “unexpectedly rapid progression, atypical presentations, or unusually aggressive courses of disease.”

Forty-one percent of the studies identified a link between the COVID-19 vaccines and solid tumors, including melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, sarcomas and “organ-specific carcinomas, such as pancreatic cancer.”

Several studies “described unusually rapid onset, short-latency recurrence, or aggressive clinical progression” for these tumor types. Some of the studies “described tumor formation or recurrence at or near vaccine injection sites.”

The review cited several recent large-scale studies, including a two-year study of 8.4 million South Koreans published last year.

The South Korean study found a statistically significant link between COVID-19 vaccines and six cancer types, including breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers, and a 27% higher overall cancer risk.

The review also cited a 2025 study of nearly 300,000 Italians that found cancer hospitalizations were moderately higher among COVID-19 vaccine recipients, with a particularly increased risk of bladder, breast and colorectal cancer.

The authors also cited a U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division report tracking non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence among active-duty service members between 2017 and 2023. The report found a significant increase in some lymphomas in 2021, the year COVID-19 shots became widely available.

The authors said their findings “underscore the need for rigorous epidemiologic, longitudinal, clinical, histopathological, forensic, and mechanistic studies to assess whether and under what conditions COVID-19 vaccination or infection may be linked with cancer.”

Amazon Censors Respected 2nd Amendment Author by Refusing to Sell His Books

From [HERE] A respected, self-published Second Amendment author reports that Amazon no longer allows new copies of his books to be sold, only used ones, directly denying him to be compensated for his work.

“Note that Amazon has shut down new copy sales of The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms by limiting access to my publishing storefront, Golden Oak Books,” David E. Young informed his readers on his On Second Opinion blog in December. Any links to Amazon on this page or on my web page, secondamendmentinfo.com, or elsewhere will no longer show sales of new copies from the publisher (these are self-published books). Only used copies are available from Amazon or elsewhere.”

Young includes links to both, and they both only allow customers to “Buy Used.”

That should be of concern to all gun owners who believe in the value of authentic Second Amendment scholarship. As noted in an interview this correspondent conducted with Mr. Young in 2008, “Origin contains relevant material literally transcribed from newspaper articles, editorials, broadsides, pamphlets, speeches, proceedings, and amendment proposals that directly or indirectly relate to the Second Amendment and its adoption as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights,” and “The Founders’ View traces … the most relevant American characters, comments, actions, and resolutions that resulted in development and adoption of the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights.”

The Second Amendment community is not the only one that values Young’s work. The legal community, from the very top, also views it as authoritative [MORE]

Philip Giraldi: What Does Venezuela Have to Do with Israel?

From [HERE ]It is interesting to observe how United States foreign policy, such as it is, often appears to have an Israeli back story that explains at least in part how Donald Trump’s mindless aggression against much of the world is driven by Zionist imperatives rather than actual American interests. Ukraine is supported by Israel and the US Israel Lobby in part because the roots of many diaspora and Israeli Jews are “Kazarian,” i.e. they derive from that part of Eastern Europe. Plus, Ukraine’s acting head of state Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew whose mother and father reportedly live in Israel in a posh residence paid for by the money stolen by their son from US and European donations to Kiev to fight Russia. Also, the Jewish antipathy towards Moscow in large part derives from the belief that Imperial Russia was the source of many pogroms in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That narrative fails, however, to mention how Russian Jews turned Bolshevik and, becoming enforcers of the Communist Revolution, subsequently got their revenge a hundred-fold on Russian and other Eastern European Christians.

And, of course, it has been frequently observed how US policy in the Middle East is essentially dictated by war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who de facto controls both Trump and the US Congress. The Israel Lobby also has significant input into what goes on in state and local government levels and has considerable control over what appears in the national media, which they increasingly own thanks to the efforts of Jewish billionaires like Larry Ellison. This ability to use money to manipulate politics and government has been manifested in the ability to suppress free speech in the United States when the topic is Israel’s abhorrent behavior towards the Palestinians and its other neighbors. Criminalizing antisemitism, which includes any criticism of Israel, has become the crime du jour to silence opposition to pro-Zionist agendas at both federal and state level and it has also been used to eliminate Palestinian support at universities and in the job market. Beyond that, the US State Department is now demanding access to the social media of visa applicants so that those who are supporters of the Palestinian cause can be blocked from entry into the United States. This is what Jewish power in America is all about.

It is interesting to note the somewhat unexpected Israeli and Jewish hand in recent US aggression directed particularly against Venezuela. There are several main reasons for the Venezuela hit. Caracas developed a close relationship with Iran through its negotiations over BRICS and has unambiguously sided with Palestine in denouncing the Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity. This clearly was impressed upon Donald Trump and his consiglieri by the Israelis and members of the Israeli Lobby like Miriam Adelson and Laura Loomer who have full access to the president and who no doubt were able to convince the Orangeman that he would be able to benefit by striking against an ally of a common enemy of the US and Israel with one fell swoop. [MORE]

Patrick Lawrence: An Abyss of Lawlessness

From [HERE] It is a long time now since the paying-attention among us began speaking of the fundamental lawlessness of our time.

It was the Israelis who prompted this discourse, as readers will easily recall, by way of their daily barbarities against the Palestinians of Gaza after the events of Oct. 7, 2023.

The Western powers compounded the shock of all that real-time savagery as they supported the Zionist terror machine — militarily, materially, politically, legally, diplomatically.

Alon Mizrahi, the Arab Jew who left Israel in protest three autumns ago, afterward made the point severally in The Mizrahi Perspective, his Substack newsletter:

This is what comes when a people are told that however atrocious their conduct toward others, however great their crimes, there will never be any consequence. Totalized impunity: In two words, this was Mizrahi’s preoccupation.

As 2025 drew mercifully to a close, I sat to share some observations concerning law and its perversion or absence or opposite — American law, European law, international law — with the Zionist regime much in mind.

The world’s most lawless state had just de-recognized the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which bears primary responsibility for the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan, so stripping UNRWA of diplomatic immunity while sequestering its finances, blocking its supplies of electricity and water, and seizing its offices in East Jerusalem.

The Israelis also barred 37 aid organizations from the Gaza Strip, including — some big names here—the French, Belgian, and Spanish affiliates of Médecins sans Frontières, Mercy Corps, the International Rescue Committee.

As John Whitbeck, the tireless Parisian blogger, put it in response, “Israel’s finding a new way, virtually every day, to flaunt its contempt for the United Nations, international law, and human decency.”

With the move against UNRWA, it is indeed clear the Israelis intend to destroy the U.N. and all it stands for as completely as the world lets it. And so to a second source of outrage:  It looks so far as if the world is going to let it.

Now the Trump regime, with its invasion of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on Jan. 3, its abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and its plans to occupy the nation and appropriate its petroleum reserves, has cast aside all thought of law, American and international alike.

It is as if Israel’s crimes-without-consequence these past two and some years (counting conservatively) were a kind of prelude — as if they had cleared the ground in some transformative way, an announcement that the law of our time is at bottom the lawlessness of those in power.

Questions arise. Two. [MORE]

There was No Probable Cause to Arrest Natalie Good for a Federal Offense, so there is No Immunity. Failure to Prosecute the Murder of a White Woman Will Embolden ICE to Believe They Can Murder Anyone

WILL DUMBOCRAT AUTHORITIES DO ANYTHING OR JUST COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON TV? DR. BLYND EXPLAINS,  “Don’t complain about what you’re willing to permit.” FUNKTIONARY STATES:

Cop Mantra – “Stop resisting arrest, stop resisting arrest, stop resisting arrest.” A pretense and precursor to murder. Everything cops say or do (including life-ending, life-wrecking abuses and/or rage-inducing bullying they routinely inflict on innocent people with impunity) needs to be looked at with extreme suspicion. Cops (patrolling predators) not only need to wear body-cameras, but they also need to be under surveillance 24/7. “If one million cobras were set loose on our city streets, wouldn’t you think it proper to know where each one was and what it was doing all the time?” ~Fred Woodworth.

No Supremacy Clause Immunity. Due to the facts that; ICE cops did not have probable cause to believe that Natalie Good committed a federal offense and that ICE cops have no authority to enforce traffic or local laws in Minnesota, the ICE cop who fatally shot her should not have Supremacy Clause immunity for his actions.

Under Supremacy Clause immunity a federal official cannot be made “to answer for an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States, which it was his duty to [do as a federal officer], and if in doing that act he did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do, he cannot be guilty of a crime under the law of” any state.” For the defense to apply 2 things are required: 1) the action which forms the basis of the state prosecution must have been within the scope of the federal officer's authority and 2) whether the federal officer's actions, now the basis of a state-court indictment, were “necessary and proper to the execution of his responsibilities.”

It is undisputed that ICE cops have no authority to enforce traffic violations or local criminal laws in Minnesota.

In this case, on 1/7/26 Natalie Good's Honda Pilot SUV was stopped sideways leftward on Portland Avenue about a half block from a school where ICE was posted up surveilling parents and kids. She was blocking one lane of travel on said one way street that has two lanes of travel. Traffic moved around her car in the other lane. Good repeatedly honked her horn. Video shows ICE agents approached her car and witnesses claim they shouted contradictory orders at her to leave and to get out of the car. Good reportedly complied with the order to leave the area as she waved an approaching ICE vehicle to pass by. On video no ICE cops were blocked. Then two agents approached her vehicle. One agent grabbed her car’s door handle while he ordered her to "get the fuck out the car." As the agent grabbed the car door Good put the car in reverse to flee the scene. Meanwhile, when the 2 cops arrived, on video agent Ross is seen walking around the back of her car and then to the passenger side of her car. As Good put the car in reverse Ross moved to the front drivers side of the car but stood at a distance of about 10 feet away - apparently to block her exit. Videos show the car’s wheels turning to the right and Good moving the steering wheel to the right to turn right, avoid Ross (who was in front at a  distance) and flee the scene. As the car moved forward Ross stepped to the side and shot Good once through the windshield and twice through the drivers side window. A frame by frame analysis by Washpost appears to show Ross fired all three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him. Federal authorities have refused to release the body-camera footage of the incident.

Good was not under arrest for any federal offense when ICE cops ordered her to get out of the car and pulled on her door handle to physically remove her from the car. Although there was probable cause to believe that Good violated a Minnesota traffic law by blocking a lane of travel and probable cause to believe she violated the disorderly conduct statute, ICE has no authority to enforce such laws. Thus, attempting to stop and arrest Ms. Good for local law violations was beyond the scope of the federal officers’ authority and consequently was also not “necessary and proper to the execution of his responsibilities,” which are only federal. ICE was not enforcing federal law or carrying out federal duties when it interacted with her. As such, Supremacy Clause immunity should not apply. 

Although, the government has claimed Good interfered with or stalked ICE cops there appear to be no facts to support the claims. She made noise with her car horn and blocked a lane in the street, so ICE should have called the local police to deal with the traffic violations. 

No Qualified Immunity. Also, the ICE cop is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was not 'reasonably arguable’ that there was probable cause for arrest for any federal offense. 

An officer who makes an arrest without probable cause, however, may still be entitled to qualified immunity if he reasonably believed there to have been probable cause. See Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1024 (9th Cir.2009). In this case, Officer Ross was apparently not aware of any specific facts that Ms. Good had committed a federal offense. As such, it is not reasonably arguable that probable cause for a federal offense existed. Therefore, Ross should not be entitled to qualified immunity. 

Prosecution Under State Law. Minnesota can prosecute Officer Ross under state law and if so the Minnesota use of Force statute (Minn.Stat. § 609.066) might be applicable to his defense.

As explained by police law legal scholar, Cynthia Lee [MORE], police use of force in the United States is primarily governed by two lines of authority: (1) Supreme Court decisions on what counts as excessive force under the Fourth Amendment in civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,36 and (2) state use of force statutes, which specify the requirements for a law enforcement officer’s claim of justifiable force in a state criminal prosecution. Although there are many parallels between these two lines of authority, they are not one and the same. Supreme Court decisions control in § 1983 civil rights actions involving claims that law enforcement officers used excessive force. State use of force statutes control in state criminal prosecutions of law enforcement officers charged with murder, manslaughter, or any other crime of violence who claim justifiable force. An officer’s claim of justifiable force in a state criminal law prosecution is much like a civilian-defendant’s claim of self-defense except state use of force statutes that outline the requirements for the law enforcement defense are generally more forgiving of police officers than self-defense statutes are of civilians. 

Most people assume that Supreme Court case law on police use of force controls in state criminal prosecutions of law enforcement officers. Although a state that does not have a use of force statute may follow Supreme Court case law on police use of force, in the vast majority of states that have enacted statutes on police use of force, the use of force statute—enacted by the state legislature—is what controls in a state criminal law prosecution of a law enforcement officer who claims their use of force was justified. While there may be overlap between the two lines of authority, state use of force statutes can and, in many respects, do diverge from Supreme Court case law. Contrary to common belief, state use of force statutes that appear to contradict the holdings of Supreme Court case law on excessive force in the § 1983 context are not unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they diverge from Supreme Court case law.

WHAT CRIME WAS MS. GOOD UNDER ARREST FOR WHEN ICE RACE SOLDIERS PULLED ON HER CAR DOOR TO REMOVE HER FROM HER CAR, ORDERED HER TO “GET THE FUCK OUT” AND MOVED IN FRONT OF HER CAR TO STOP HER from leaving??”

Minn.Stat. § 609.066 states: 

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.

Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined.

For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 1a.Legislative intent.

  The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:

(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;

(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;

(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and

(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.

Subd. 2 .Use of deadly force.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

Subd. 3. No defense.

 This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.

Like JD Vance said; ‘Uncontrollable Unaccountable ICE Race Soldiers were Hunting Immigration Criminals who Drop Off Their Kids at School when Terrorist Renee Good Disturbed Their Peace w/a Car Horn’

From [HERE] When Vice President J.D. Vance told reporters at a press briefing Thursday that Jonathan Ross, the federal immigration agent who was filmed fatally shooting Renee Good in Minneapolis, has “absolute immunity,” he was not referring to any recognized statute in United States law, according to legal experts.

Instead, said Human Rights Campaign press secretary Brandon Wolf, “masked federal agents who can gun people down with ‘absolute immunity’ is called fascism.”

Vance addressed reporters at the White House the day after Good was fatally shot at close range while serving as a legal observer of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) surge of federal agents in Minneapolis, where the Trump administration is targeting members of the Somali community in particular.

Widely available footage taken by onlookers shows ICE agents including Ross approaching the car and, according to at least one witness, giving her conflicting instructions, with one ordering her to leave the area and another telling her to get out of the car.

The wheel of Good’s car was seen turning as she began to drive away, just before Ross fired his weapon at least three times.

President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vance immediately blamed Good for her death, saying she had committed an act of domestic terrorism and had tried to run Ross over with her car.

Vance doubled down on Thursday when a reporter asked him why state officials in Minnesota were being cut off from investigating Good’s death—a fact that has left the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which had been planning to launch a probe, with few tools to bring a case to prosecutors.

The vice president said Minnesota prosecutors should instead investigate people who “are using their vehicles and other means” to interfere with ICE’s operations before claiming that Ross is protected from being held accountable for his actions.

“That guy’s protected by absolute immunity,” said Vance. “He was doing his job. The idea that [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after him and make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous.”

Robert Bennett, a veteran lawyer in Minneapolis, told Mother Jones that he has worked on hundreds of cases regarding federal law enforcement misconduct.

“I’ve deposed thousands of police officers,” he said. “ICE agents do not have absolute immunity.”

He continued:

There’s plenty of case law that allows for the prosecution of federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE. And it’s clear under the law that a federal officer who shoots somebody in Minnesota and kills them is subject to a Minnesota investigation and Minnesota law.

Constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer of Northern Kentucky University told CNN that more than a century of legal precedent has shown that state prosecutors can file charges against federal officials for actions they take while completing their official duties.

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” Mannheimer said.

Should the state take up the case, Ross could attempt to raise an immunity argument if he were able to move the case to a federal court, where a judge would then conduct a two-part analysis—determining whether Ross was acting in his official capacity and whether his action was “reasonable” considering all the facts on the ground, gathered from video evidence and eyewitness testimony.

While holding Ross accountable may be an uphill battle, former federal prosecutor Timothy Sini told CNN, “officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law,” contrary to Vance’s claim. [MORE]

Israel Murders 5 Children in Surge of Attacks on Gaza “Safe Zone”

From [HERE] Eleven-year-old Hamsa Housou lay dead on a cold metal table at the morgue in Al-Shifa hospital. Blood covered her face and the upper part of her striped pajamas as one of her relatives gently wiped her mouth and cheek with a damp cloth, crying as he did so. She had been asleep in her bed early Thursday morning when she was fatally struck by Israeli gunfire. Her family’s home in Jabaliya, west of the so-called yellow line, is in an area designated as safe.

“We were sleeping, and suddenly, around 5 a.m., there were bangs—loud bangs and shells,” Hamsa’s uncle, Aouni Housou, said, standing over her small body. “I live upstairs, and there was screaming. We ran downstairs and they said the girl had been injured. We went to see her and she was covered in blood.” It took half an hour for an ambulance to arrive. When they finally reached the hospital, Hamsa had died.

The eleven-year-old was just one of as many as 14 Palestinians, including five children, killed in Israeli attacks across the Gaza Strip over the past 24 hours, according to an Al Jazeera toll. Since the so-called ceasefire went into effect on October 10, Israel has killed Palestinians in Gaza on an almost daily basis. The missile strikes, shootings, and shelling occur in areas both east of the yellow line, which Israeli troops are occupying as part of the initial agreement, and west of it, where the majority of Palestinians are crammed into less than half of Gaza’s territory. At least 425 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,200 wounded over the past three months of the “ceasefire”—a rate of nearly five Palestinians killed every day.

“Every night there is bombing, shooting, fire belts, robots. Every night. Shrapnel hits our home. What ceasefire? This ceasefire is just theater in front of the world. What caused them to kill her?” Housou said, pointing at his dead niece, unable to hold back the tears.

While much of the world’s attention has turned away from Gaza since the “ceasefire” took hold, the genocide has continued, with daily Israeli military attacks and heavy restrictions on life essentials, including medical supplies, food, building materials, and other items. [MORE]

Vijay Prashad: The absence of U.N. and O.A.S. condemnations of Washington’s attacks on Venezuela indicates the absolute mafia-type power the U.S. wields in the world

What makes the attack against Venezuela illegal? Given the way that the United States completely and consistently disregards international law, even as it talks about a “rules-based international order,” it is worthwhile to revisit the basics of international law as well as review the international laws that the country violated with its attack on Venezuela on Jan. 3.

First, when we talk about “international law,” we are referring to legal obligations that states — and, in certain cases, international organisations and individuals — recognise as binding in their relations with one another.

From [HERE] These rules come from two main sources: treaties (written agreements) and customary international law (rules that become binding through consistent state practice and are accepted as law).

A state must consent to be bound by a treaty (which means it should either sign the treaty or accede to it), but it may be bound by customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens, or “compelling law,” fundamental rules that bind all states) regardless of whether it has signed any treaty.

For instance, the prohibition against genocide and slavery does not require a state to sign anything, since these prohibitions are recognised as peremptory norms that bind all states as a matter of international law.

Another way of saying this is that some laws are so fundamental that no state can opt out of them. The obligations that I will refer to below come from both sources: treaties (such as the U.N. Charter) and customary international law (including the principle of non-intervention and head-of-state immunity), sometimes interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice (ICJ, the U.N.’s highest court for disputes between states), whose judgements carry special authority in explaining what international law requires in practice.

• Prohibition of the threat or use of force. There are two key treaties that should restrict the United States’ use of force against other countries:

  1. The most important is the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, whose Article 2(4) says that all states must refrain from the “threat or use of force” against another state. There are limited exceptions to this, such as if the U.N. Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter (Articles 39–42), determines that there is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and then authorises the use of force to “maintain or restore international peace and security,” or if a state is acting in self-defence. Since there is no other exception, the U.S.’ act of aggression against Venezuela is in clear violation of the U.N. Charter, the highest treaty obligation in the interstate system.

  2. In Latin America, there is also the 1948 Charter of the Organisation of American States (OAS), in which Article 21 says that the “territory of a state is inviolable” and that no “military occupation” or “measures of force” are permitted by one state against another. The OAS Charter follows the U.N. Charter, in which Article 103 makes clear that, where treaty obligations conflict, members’ obligations under the U.N. Charter prevail over those under any other international agreement.

  There should already be resolutions at both the U.N. and the OAS to condemn the recent actions of the United States. The absence of such resolutions is a demonstration less of the powerlessness of the interstate system by itself and more of the absolute mafia-type power wielded by the United States in the world.

Oswaldo Vigas, Composición IV, 1943. (Via Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research)

• Non-intervention in the internal or external affairs of a state. Article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter underscores the centrality of state sovereignty by making it clear that nothing in the Charter authorises the United Nations to intervene in matters “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of any state (except through enforcement measures under Chapter VII).

The prohibition of states intervening in one another’s affairs is also set out plainly in Article 19 of the OAS Charter, which says that no state “has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever” in the internal or external affairs of another state, and that includes any “form of interference” — including a military invasion and the seizure of a head of government.

The U.N. Charter and the O.A.S. Charter are treaties, and customary international law reinforces these treaty rules, independently prohibiting intervention. [MORE]

Marjorie Cohn: Cloutlaw Trump's Attack on Venezuela is a Plainly Unlawful, "War of Aggression" within the Meaning of the International Criminal Court

From [HERE] The Trump administration’s massive military attack on Venezuela, launched with 150 aircraft, reportedly killed upwards of 80 people, including civilians.

In utter defiance of the mandates of the United Nations Charter, U.S. forces launched the attack as they kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, First Lady Cilia Flores, who have been transported to New York, where they face drug trafficking charges.

After two world wars claimed more than 100 million lives, 50 countries came together and enacted the U.N. Charter to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” The United States, one of the drafters of the Charter, is a party to that treaty.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, and judges across the country are bound by them.

Article 2 (4) of the Charter declares,

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The only two exceptions to that prohibition are when a country acts in self-defense after an armed attack or when the U.N. Security Council approves the use of force. The attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores did not constitute self-defense nor did the Security Council authorize it.

Venezuela had not launched an armed attack on the U.S. or any other country, nor did it pose an imminent threat. In a stark example of the tail wagging the dog, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in the press conference following the invasion that the U.S. military engaged in “multiple self-defense engagements as the force began to withdraw out of Venezuela.”

Indeed, it is Venezuela that has the right to exercise self-defense in response to the armed attack by the United States.

Illegal Aggression

Donald Trump’s Jan. 3 attack constituted illegal aggression. In its 1946 judgment, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held:

“To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of whole.”

Under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, an

“‘act of aggression’ means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” That includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”

The U.S. military attack violated the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Venezuela, and thus constituted aggression.

Trump attempted to justify his aggression by claiming that Maduro was the kingpin of an operation that brought drugs into the U.S., saying in his press conference after the abduction that Maduro “sent savage and murderous gangs, including the bloodthirsty prison gang, Tren de Aragua, to terrorize American communities nationwide.”

But an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies from February 2025 determined that Tren de Aragua was neither controlled by the Venezuelan government, nor committing crimes in the U.S. on its orders.

[See: Behind the DOJ’s Politicized Indictment of Maduro]

And most of the cocaine coming into the U.S. is thought to travel not through the Caribbean but rather through the Pacific, according to data from Colombia, the U.S., and the United Nations. Venezuela doesn’t have a Pacific Coast.

Trump also stated at his press conference that he intends to take over Venezuela’s oil and sell it to other countries because it belongs to the United States and U.S. corporations.

But the U.S. has never owned Venezuela’s oil or territory. In 1976, Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized Venezuela’s oil industry. In a process contemporaneously described by The New York Times as “peaceful and orderly,” U.S. and European oil companies that had previously been operating in Venezuela were compensated with about $1 billion.

Foreign oil companies have lodged and won awards in further complaints against Venezuela in the World Bank’s state-corporate dispute arbitration system after then-President Hugo Chávez nationalized other segments of the country’s oil production in 2007, which Venezuela has not paid out. Even if Trump’s bizarre claim that the U.S. owns Venezuela’s oil were true, that would not provide a legal basis for his military attack.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio put forth still a different rationale for the military operation. He claimed it was “largely a law enforcement operation” to arrest Maduro and Flores, on charges in a U.S. indictment alleging that they and other members of the Maduro government committed narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine.

But a state has no enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another state unless the latter has given its consent. Without consent, it is a violation of the second state’s territorial sovereignty.

Moreover, under customary international law, Maduro has “head of state immunity” from foreign enforcement jurisdiction. The U.S. withdrawal of recognition of him as head of the Venezuelan government does not negate his personal immunity under customary international law. These are two defenses Maduro will invariably raise when his case is heard in the United States.

The 1989 OLC Opinion

In an attempt to justify its illegal aggression against Venezuela, the Trump administration will undoubtedly rely on an opinion written in 1989 by then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The opinion was dated six months before President George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Panama, in which the U.S. arrested Gen. Manuel Noriega on drug-trafficking charges.

That opinion says that the president has inherent constitutional authority to order an extraterritorial arrest even if it violates customary international law by intruding “on the sovereignty of other countries.”

The opinion also asserts that domestic U.S. law trumps the U.N. Charter, which prohibits the “use of force against the territorial integrity” of any state. Barr wrote that the Charter doesn’t “prohibit the Executive as a matter of domestic law from authorizing forcible abductions” abroad.

“The OLC opinion completely failed to address numerous recognitions of the founders, framers, and Supreme Court justices that the president and members of the executive branch are bound by international law,” Jordan Paust, professor emeritus at the University of Houston Law Center and former captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, told Truthout. “Further, the express constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the law — not to disobey law.”

Additionally, a significant difference between the Noriega and Maduro cases is that before Bush ordered the arrest of Noriega, Panama’s general assembly had formally declared war against the United States.

Illegal Regime Change & US Occupation

After Maduro’s abduction, Trump said that the United States would occupy Venezuela and “run” the country. “We’re going to stay until such time as the proper transition can take place. So we’re gonna stay until such time as, we’re gonna run it, essentially, until such time as a proper transition can take place.”

Forcible regime change is illegal. The U.N. Charter; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all guarantee the right to self-determination.

The two covenants have the same first sentence of Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

By kidnapping President Maduro and removing him from Venezuela, Trump engaged in illegal regime change and violated the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination. [MORE]

Chris Hedges: Territorial Gangsters [governments] Cannibalize their own country and pillage the natural resources of other countries

From [Chris Hedges] The ruling class of the United States, severed from a fact-based universe and blinded by idiocy, greed and hubris, has immolated the internal mechanisms that prevent dictatorship, and the external mechanisms designed to protect against a lawless world of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy.

U.S. democratic institutions are moribund. They are unable or unwilling to restrain the ruling gangster class. The lobby-infested Congress is a useless appendage. It surrendered its constitutional authority, including the right to declare war and pass legislation, long ago.

It sent a paltry 38 bills to Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law last year. Most were “disapproval” resolutions rolling back regulations enacted during the Biden administration. Trump governs by imperial decree through executive orders.

The media, owned by corporations and oligarchs, from Jeff Bezos to Larry Ellison, is an echo chamber for the crimes of state, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinians; attacks on Iran, Yemen and Venezuela; and the pillage by the billionaire class. Money-saturated elections are a burlesque.

The diplomatic corps, tasked with negotiating treaties and agreements, preventing war and building alliances, has been dismantled. The courts, despite some rulings by courageous judges, including blocking National Guard deployments to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, are lackeys to corporate power and overseen by a Department of Justice whose primary function is silencing Trump’s political enemies.

The corporate-indentured Democratic Party, the purported opposition, blocks the only mechanism that can save Americans — popular mass movements and strikes — knowing its corrupt and despised party leadership will be swept aside.

Democratic Party leaders treat New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — a flicker of light in the darkness — as if he has leprosy. Better to let the whole ship go down than surrender their status and privilege.

Dictatorships are one-dimensional. They reduce politics to its simplest form: Do what I say or I will destroy you.

Nuance, complexity, compromise, and of course empathy and understanding, are beyond the tiny emotional bandwidth of gangsters, including the Gangster-in-Chief.

Dictatorships are a thug’s paradise. Gangsters, whether on Wall Street, Silicon Valley or in the White House, cannibalize their own country and pillage the natural resources of other countries.

Dictatorships invert the social order. Honesty, hard work, compassion, solidarity, self-sacrifice are negative qualities. Those who embody these qualities are marginalized and persecuted. The heartless, corrupt, mendacious, cruel and mediocre thrive.

Dictatorships empower goons to keep their victims — at home and abroad — immobilized. Goons from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Goons from Delta Force, Navy Seals and Black Ops C.I.A. teams, which as any Iraqi or Afghan can tell you are the most lethal death squads on the planet.

Goons from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) and Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.) — seen escorting a hand-cuffed President Nicolás Maduro in New York — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and police departments.

Can anyone seriously make the argument that the U.S. is a democracy? Are there any democratic institutions that function? Is there any check on state power?

Is there any mechanism that can enforce the rule of law at home, where legal residents are snatched by masked thugs from our streets, where a phantom “radical left” is an excuse to criminalize dissent, where the highest court in the land bestows king-like power and immunity on Trump? [MORE]

Trump Creates a Free Range Plantation in Venezuela: Imposes Involuntary Rule Over Subjects Who Must Obey US Authority or Face Violence but are Otherwise “Free” to Live w/o Autonomy, Self-Determination

From [HERE] President Trump has told The New York Times that he expects to “run” Venezuela for many years following the US attack on Caracas to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

By “running” Venezuela, the president appears to mean controlling its oil industry and getting access to the country’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world, for more American companies.

“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” he told the paper. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”

When asked how long he expects the US to remain Venezuela’s “political overlord,” three months, six months, or a year, the president said, “I would say much longer.”

Trump has threatened to attack Venezuela again and potentially send troops, but declined to say what sort of situation could lead to that. “I wouldn’t want to tell you that,” he said.

Trump and his top officials have said that the US will be controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and will start by acquiring 30 million to 50 million barrels. However, Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, has framed the deal as a routine sale of oil to the US, similar to its dealings with Chevron, which continues to operate in the country.

Trump insisted to the Times that Venezuela’s government, which is currently led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s vice president, is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”

Rodriguez has said that no “foreign agent” is running Venezuela and has maintained that Maduro is the rightful president and must be released by the US. “Today, more than ever, the Bolivarian political forces stand firm and united to guarantee the stability of our nation,” she said in a post on Telegram on Thursday.

“Together with the Great Patriotic Pole Simón Bolívar (GPPSB), we have reviewed and cohesively adopted three lines of action: the release of our heroes, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores; preserving peace and stability throughout the national territory; and consolidating governance for the benefit of our people,” she added. [MORE]

Why is Yurugu in Venezuela? It Has the World’s Largest Oil Reserves, the 9th Largest Natural Gas Reserves, and Vast Untapped Minerals Including Gold, Coal and Diamonds

Following the abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro last week, the administration of US President Donald Trump has stated that it wants to quickly restore the country’s oil production and expand its mining sector.

“You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals, they have great mining history that’s gone rusty,” US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Sunday from aboard Air Force One. “President Trump is going to fix it and bring it back.”

Venezuela’s oil reserves are concentrated primarily in the Orinoco Belt, a vast region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000 square kilometres (21,235 square miles), which is controlled by Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

The Orinoco Belt holds extra-heavy crude oil, which is highly viscous and dense, making it much harder and more expensive to extract than conventional crude oil. As a result, it typically sells at a discount compared to lighter, sweeter crudes, such as those extracted from US shale.

Refining oil from this region requires advanced techniques that the US possesses, particularly in the states of Texas and Louisiana. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Yurugu – a mythological figure within the Dogon tribe (Africa) who is “the incomplete being” (fiend without a face) referring to Neuropeans (neurotic Europeans) within the European asili. 2) a regressive (degenerative) state of consciousness where the soul is cut off from itself. 3) the inability to recognize or abate unacknowledged destructive capabilities. Yurugu also expresses itself and manifests as the pathological condition that utterly fails to convince those in geographical proximity of its harmlessness, therefore has to kill them. Yurugu is in a vicious spiral increasingly at odds with his own humanity—as fragmented, pathological, and distorted as it is. (See: Asili, Caucasian, Racism White Supremacy, Elite, Western Civilization, Neuropean, Oppression, Scarcity, Violence, Genocide, Manifest Density & Ma’afa)

The Blight House is Forcing the Venezuelan Economy to Collapse to Coerce Cooperation with Its Unwanted, Illegitimate Rule by Force

From [HERE] After seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration is increasing the already substantial pressure on the country’s new president, Delcy Rodríguez, demanding she cut ties with U.S. adversaries before a blockade on Venezuelan oil is lifted.

The economic pressure campaign has emerged as central to President Donald Trump’s vow that the United States would “run” Venezuela. In an apparent indication of early compliance, Rodríguez’s government agreed to a deal under which Venezuela would hand millions of barrels of oil over to the U.S.

Inside Venezuela, a nervous quiet has descended on many parts of the capital as people grapple with the aftermath of the U.S. attack and a widening government crackdown against dissent. For now, Caracas residents report no shortages of goods in markets, but inflation is up, normally busy streets are empty and the businesses that do open only do so for set periods of time.

Under the current conditions, Trump administration officials say the Venezuelan government only has a few weeks before it would “go broke” if it doesn’t “play ball,” according to two U.S. officials briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations.

Analysts and economists said that timeline probably describes how long the U.S. assesses that the government in Caracas has before its cash reserves run out and it is left unable to make critical payments, such as salaries for security forces.

“The president is speaking about exerting maximum leverage with the interim authorities in Venezuela and ensuring they cooperate with the United States,” said a senior administration official. “As the president stated, the embargo on sanctioned Venezuelan oil remains in full effect,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Trump has said he is demanding the U.S. get “total access” to Venezuela’s oil reserves and “other things.” Among those is a demand that Venezuela cut ties with China, Iran, Russia and Cuba and agree to partner exclusively with the U.S. on oil production, according to one of the U.S. officials briefed on the matter.[MORE]

More Proof that “Anti-Semitism” has No Meaning: Tucker Carlson Named ‘Antisemite of the Year’ for Opposing Israel’s Ongoing Genocide in Gaza

ACCORDING TO THE FUNKTIONARY:

antisemantic – pertaining to statements whose deliberate purpose is to mean or impart nothing while sounding as if they express some significant point or penetrating insight—like “Adjunct” Professor. Adjunct is a title meaning “non-essential.” 

anti-Semitism – “A European political ploy.” (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.) 2) bigotry against European “Jews” and “Arabs” (as both are Semites)—although most so-called “Jews” are of Eastern European genetic lineage (from Russia). The Jewish race (Twelve Tribes of Israel) is an invented construct (mythology). (See: Twelve Tribes of Israel)

A US pro-Israel advocacy group has named political commentator and journalist Tucker Carlson as its “Antisemite of the Year”, citing his opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

StopAntisemitism announced the designation on Sunday, accusing Carlson of hostility towards Israel after he used his podcast and media appearances to criticise the war and the political influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington.

Carlson, whose online platform reaches millions, has become one of the most prominent rightwing voices denouncing Israel’s grip on US politics, particularly since Tel Aviv launched its war on Gaza on 7 October 2023.

He has singled out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), calling its influence "an ongoing humiliation ritual" for American lawmakers and the country, and has warned that the US is complicit in Israel’s war.

He has also accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, of openly boasting about his leverage over US leaders. [MORE]

UN Human Rights Office says Israel ‘Asphyxiating’ Palestinians for Its ‘Apartheid System’ in West Bank [a most strict free range Plantation Prison]

From [HERE] The United Nations human rights office has called on Israel to “dismantle all settlements” in the occupied West Bank, saying its “oppression and domination” of Palestinians resembles “apartheid”.

In a new report on Wednesday, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed Israel’s “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians, citing restrictions on movement through checkpoints, and “limited access to roads, natural resources, land and basic social facilities”.

“There is a systematic asphyxiation of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank,” said UN rights chief Volker Turk in a statement. “This is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination and segregation that resembles the kind of apartheid system we have seen before.”

The United Nations human rights office has called on Israel to “dismantle all settlements” in the occupied West Bank, saying its “oppression and domination” of Palestinians resembles “apartheid”.

In a new report on Wednesday, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed Israel’s “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians, citing restrictions on movement through checkpoints, and “limited access to roads, natural resources, land and basic social facilities”.

“There is a systematic asphyxiation of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank,” said UN rights chief Volker Turk in a statement. “This is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination and segregation that resembles the kind of apartheid system we have seen before.” [MORE]

Trump Pulls US Out of UN Forum: Stupidly Believes Reparations are an Act of Benevolence (like DEI), Not Pay Back Owed for Unjust Enrichment, Demonstrable Oppression and Crimes Against Humanity

President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday to pull the US out of a UN coalition that State Department officials claim has been pushing unconstitutional and racist policies — including a push for global reparations.

The UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent promoted racial grievances and “victim based social policies” within the world’s governing body that ran afoul of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment and Equal Protection clause, according to Trump administration officials.

“Radical activists who embrace DEI ideology and seek to compel the United States to adopt policies mandating race-based wealth redistribution, in organizations such as the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent will no longer be entertained,” he added.

The coalition has advocated for a “global reparations agenda” to “compensate Africa and the African diaspora for the enduring legacies of colonialism, enslavement, apartheid and genocide between the 16th and the 19th centuries.” [MORE]

Murder: Hollywood Police Claimed They were Forced to Fatally Shoot an Armed Black Man but New Video Shows Cops Shoot Him in the Back as He Walked Away w/His Hands Up, Made No Other Effort to Stop Him

From [HERE] and [HERE] Five months after police in Broward County said they were forced to fire on a man who was armed during a confrontation, the man's family says new video tells a different story.

Donald Taylor, 32, was fatally shot by Hollywood Police in Miramar on Aug. 3, near Southwest 19th Street and 61st Avenue.

Detectives said they were trying to make contact with Taylor, who they accused of being involved in a string of violent crimes in Miramar and Hollywood, including a shooting and armed robbery.

When they spotted Taylor, he was armed and refused to listen to officers' commands, before the officers opened fire, officials said.

Taylor's family now has an attorney, and said the new video of the encounter doesn't match what police told the public.

In the video shared by the family's attorney, Taylor is seen walking away from officers with his hands raised and away from his body. The video ends just before Taylor falls to the ground.

Police said a gun was recovered at the scene, but have not released body camera video or identified the officer who fired that fatal shot.

“I can’t think of one thing that they could say or describe that he did off camera that would justify the 20 seconds that he’s on camera with his hands up, walking away and then shot in the back," said Erian White, the family's attorney. "We’ve seen many times, on camera, people accused of worst, terrible, terroristic crimes, and somehow, they are able to be taken into custody, and they are tried.”

White believes the video raises serious questions about whether that legal standard was met, and now the family has demands. “They would like to know the name of the officer that fired the fatal shot, the names of the officers on scene and an arrest is what should be happening at this point,” White said.

---

Under Florida law police officers are authorized to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon where the officer has probable cause to believe that the arrestee poses a threat of death or serious harm to the officers or to others. Specifically Fla. Stat. § 776.05 states,

A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use ofdeadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

• (a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

• (b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

The Florida law has codified the legal standard set by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985). The Garner standard rule goes way beyond the natural law of self-defense. In Florida, an officer having probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a felony, may use the amount of force reasonably necessary to apprehend the suspect even to the extent of shooting and killing him. Shooting him/her will be justified where it is necessary to prevent the escape. To be clear here, the police may use deadly force where the person poses a threat to the public or the officer OR where “there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.” According to the Supreme Court, an officer may infer that a person poses a future danger to others simply because he is suspected of having committed a forcible felony. Garner at 11. Thus, an escaping suspect does not need to pose a specific threat of harm against a person, let alone one that is imminent. Florida courts have explained “the fact that the person has not actually committed a felony or that no crime of any sort has been committed makes no difference, as long as the appearances are such as to lead a police officer to reasonably believe that a felony has been committed and the person he is about to arrest or apprehend is the person who committed the felony.”

In this case, it appeared that the cops had probable cause to believe that Taylor had committed various felonies. If they did, then the police could use deadly force to make an arrest. The only legal question would be whether the use of deadly force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent Taylor from escaping. According to the Garner standard, shooting a person in the back would be lawful where the fleeing felon arrestee would escape but for shooting him because he is too fast or too far away or entering an area where he could be lost to the police.

Under such analysis, from the video it looks like the cops made no other effort to stop Taylor other than shooting him. That is, the cops had an opportunity to chase him because he was in sight and not a far distance away from him and he was not running but walking. If so, then the cops committed murder. However, the entire interaction between cops and Taylor has not been made available by the government so the whole context is unknown until they do.

Don’t be mad at BW. The fact that cops can lawfully shoot people in the back in the lex-icon is evidence that so-called authority, which includes the so-called right of government agents to initiate unprovoked acts of violence, is evil and immoral. Nevertheless, physical coercion is the sole basis of our legal system. The belief in authority is slavery.

---

Joy Reid is Correct: Coin-Operated SNigger Stephen A Smith’s Ratings are Proof that His Only Function is to Shadowbox Black Folks and Parrot the Messaging of His Elite, White Masters

Go jump in the fucking lions den at the zoo sambo mf.   

"Showcase Blacks" like Stephen A. Smith are high-profile blacks that are constantly paraded before the public. They may be political dignitaries, pro athletes, entertainers, educators, business people, judges or elected officials. Their real purpose is to mask the REALITY of being black in America. [MORE] They are rewarded handsomely for their activities by elite whites who control the media and the domain of discourse. Rarely critical of each other, showcase Blacks are pet negros who stroke each other's egos for master's benefit - as said created personas are a career investment. However, promoting stupid beefs among non-showcase Blacks is one of their assigned tasks. 

Showcase Blacks are a necessary illusion of the media, which Dr. Blynd calls  a "mind shampoo"- shaping the thoughts and understandings of non-white people with miseducation about themselves and their environment giving them a false consciousness - a mind filled with lies, non-realities and self-hatred. 

Racial Shadow Boxing occurs when victims of racism (non-white people) are directly or indirectly, "assigned", bribed, coerced, and/or otherwise influenced, by the racists (white Supremacist), to speak or act to do harm to other victims of racism. White Supremacists oftentimes hide behind others whom they use as shadows of themselves. [MORE] Shadowboxing is a tool used by racists to filter out Blacks who are perceived as threatening [for some reason] to elite racist whites or who have fallen out of favor with them. Shadowboxing also is used to set the parameters or outer bounds of conduct & discussion by Blacks - conduct/speech deemed undesirable by racists is ridiculed [Kapernick]. In contrast, showcase Blacks are awarded, promoted for their shenaniggerisms or sniggering conduct