It appears that if it wasn’t for #NazirAfzal reopening the case of a Muslim grooming gang and their victims in #Rochdale, the culture of silence perpetrated by the #HomeOffice down through to the local police forces would have continued. Forcing them to admit they were wrong in the way they treated the victims was key to bringing at least some of the perpetrators to justice.
Twitter has suspended the account of a Colorado biotech company which is working with Cedars-Sinai to test and develop a potential coronavirus treatment using UV light inserted into the lungs – the same week as Homeland Security’s head of Science and Technology, Bill Bryan, suggested that UV light could have a significant affect on viruses such as COVID-19.
The Red Elephants Vincent James
We are 100% viewer funded – Make a one time donation Or Become a patron on Patreon for hidden videos, behind the scenes posts and rewards:
Makers Support for one-time: https://bit.ly/2HctAks
Patreon for membership: https://bit.ly/2HsGief
Subscribe to our backup channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDuI…
The monument that honors and commemorates the Katyn massacre will be removed. This is another example of the bolshevik left erasing communist atrocities and genocides.
“The World Bank Group considers corruption a major challenge to its twin goals of ending extreme poverty by 2030 and boosting shared prosperity for the poorest 40 percent of people in developing countries.” On its website, the World Bank acknowledges that corruption is one of the main obstacles to development. However, according to a new study, World Bank aid actually fuels corruption: It is no surprise, then, that the World Bank allegedly tried to censor that paper.
In its latest issue, The Economist tied the abrupt resignation of World Bank chief economist Pinelopi (Penny) Goldberg with the story told in the paper Elite Capture of Foreign Aid: Evidence from Offshore Bank Accounts. One of that paper’s three authors, Bob Rijkers, is a World Bank economist. The other two are academics: Jorgen Juel Andersen (BI Norwegian Business School) and Niels Johannesen (University of Copenhagen).
This paper, The Economist writes,
“passed an exacting internal review by other researchers in November. But, according to informed sources, publication was blocked by higher officials.”
Today, Johannesen posted the most recent draft to his personal website. It is not difficult to understand why World Bank executives were upset.
. . . .
The implied average leakage is around 7.5 percent: This means that for every $100 of development aid, $7.50 apparently becomes corruption profits, hidden in offshore financial centers.
I never expected that everyone would celebrate or share my beliefs. But I did expect to be able to discuss and debate these differences without becoming a political target in an act of terrorism, the first conviction under Washington, D.C.’s 2002 Anti-Terrorism Act.
It was the type of violent incident that one could expect a group that purportedly monitors “hate,” like the Southern Poverty Law Center, to notice, research and decry. In fact, we were on the center’s radar but for all the wrong reasons. The assailant acknowledged later in FBI testimony that he had selected our office precisely because the SPLC had labeled my employer a “hate group.”
It has always been easier to smear people rather than wrestle with their ideas. It’s a bully who calls names and spreads lies rather than thoroughly reading a brief’s legal arguments or challenging the rationale underlying a policy proposal. The SPLC has chosen to take the easy path — to intimidate and mislead for raw political power and financial benefit.
For years, former employees revealed, local journalists reported and commentators have lamented: The Southern Poverty Law Center is not what it claims to be. Not a pure-hearted, clear-headed legal advocate for the vulnerable, but rather an obscenely wealthy marketing scheme. For years, the left-wing interest group has used its “hate group” list to promote the fiction that violent neo-Nazis and Christian nonprofits peacefully promoting orthodox beliefs about marriage and sex are indistinguishable. Sometimes, it has apologized to public figures it has smeared, and it recently paid out millions to settle a threatened defamation lawsuit.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly parroted Chinese Communist Party talking points, constantly heaping praise on Beijing’s response to coronavirus despite the fact that China hid the truth about its spread and viciously silenced scientists and doctors who tried to warn the world.
When he should have been focusing on global counter-pandemic efforts, Tedros instead was politicizing the crisis and helping Xi to shirk his responsibility for a series of wrongdoings in addressing the outbreak. Tedros used the WHO platform to defend the Chinese government’s gross violation of human rights. For example, from its first case discovered in November to its Wuhan lockdown, and even until today, China has been dishonest about the coronavirus’s origin and prevalence. People who tried to uncover it were detained or disappeared, their online reports and posts deleted. China has misinformed and misled the world, and Tedros joined this effort by publicly praising China’s “transparency” in battling the spread of the disease.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura told RT’s Lee Camp that his anti-war views were so unpopular at MSNBC, the network paid him something to the tune of ten million dollars to “keep quiet.”
After leaving office in 2003, Ventura began a weekly cable TV show, ‘Jesse Ventura’s America,’ on MSNBC. However, the show was dropped only a few months after it began. For Ventura, the show was canceled for one reason.
“They got rid of me because I opposed the invasion of Iraq,” he told Redacted Tonight’s Lee Camp. “Our government allowed no media at all to speak out against the invasion of Iraq, you were told it’s off limits basically.” While dissent may not have gone down well at MSNBC at the time, jingoism did, with host Joe Scarborough calling protesters “leftist stooges for anti-American causes,” and pundit Michael Savage suggesting they “are absolutely committing sedition, or treason.”
For purposes of this section, the term “anti-Semitism” includes a certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed 56as hatred toward Jewish people,rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities. (a) Examples of anti-Semitism include:
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or 62harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
5. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.
(b) Examples of anti-Semitism related to Israel include:
1. Demonizing Israel by using the symbols and images 80associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to 82that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions.
2. Applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel.
3. Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.
However, criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism toward any other country may not be regarded as anti-Semitic.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or the State Constitution. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to conflict with federal or state discrimination laws.