Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

I’ve Progressed Human Rights Legislation For #Disabled Citizens & #Carers -Helped Scrap Notorious 2023 Green Paper on Compulsory Medical Examination for Disabled -Successfully Advocated Full Ratification of #UNCRPD -Defeated #Ableist ‘Care’ Referendum -Vote Senator TOM CLONAN No1

3 Kommentare

Profilbild von Mary
Maryvor 1 Jahr

The very Best of Good Luck Tom,🕊✨️🕊 🍀🍀

Profilbild von Claim Climbers
Claim Climbersvor 1 Jahr

We help Veterans secure their benefits with Medical Evidence and Nexus Letters. Are you, or someone you know, working on a VA Disability claim? We can help!

Profilbild von Gráinne…please adopt dont shop 🙏🏼
Gráinne…please adopt dont shop 🙏🏼vor 1 Jahr

Hi Tom, I would love to know your thoughts on regulation of homecare, I am concerned this is a huge scandal waiting to happen.

Ähnliche Videos

Ref: GSH/XX/CXA/INT_COM_14 Date: 30/04/2025 To: All International Communities To: All Somali Citizens Cc: All International Embassies – Somalia Cc: All Human Rights Organizations Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Grave Violations of Parliamentary Rules, Constitutional Protections, and Human Dignity by the Ex-Speaker of the House of the People Your Excellencies, I write to you with deep outrage, sorrow, and unshakable frustration to formally report a grave and unacceptable incident that occurred during the official sitting of the House of the People of the Federal Republic of Somalia on April 30, 2025. This incident represents an egregious breach of constitutional order, parliamentary procedures, and basic standards of human dignity, committed by the former Speaker of the House of the People - hereinafter referred to as the Ex-Speaker, pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that once a motion of no confidence is tabled by at least one-third (1/3) of the members, the Speaker is suspended from duties pending resolution. On the floor of Parliament, before the eyes of the nation and under the pretense of authority no longer lawfully held, the Ex-Speaker ordered the deployment of armed police forces into the Chambers. This act alone is a blatant violation of Article 69 of the Provisional Constitution, which guarantees the independence of the legislative branch, and a direct assault on Articles 5 and 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the House of the People, which prohibit external forces from interfering with parliamentary deliberations without the explicit consent of the Chamber. Even more shocking was the verbal and physical abuse targeted at two honorable Members of Parliament: Hon. Mohamed Ali Omar (Cananuug), who lives with a disability, was publicly humiliated by the Ex-Speaker, who shouted on floor of the house of people “You disabled person, sit down.” Hon. Dahir Amin Jeesow, a senior elder and respected legislator, was scornfully told: “You are an old man, sit down.” Such degrading, discriminatory, and dehumanizing language constitutes a serious violation of Article 11 of the Provisional Constitution, which prohibits all forms of discrimination and upholds the dignity and equality of every Somali citizen, regardless of age or physical ability. It further breaches Somalia’s international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which Somalia is party to. In an even more disturbing development, journalists covering the parliamentary session were forced at gunpoint to cease live broadcasting under the orders of the Ex-Speaker, and several were later assaulted and had their equipment destroyed outside the chamber. This constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, press, and access to information. It is a direct attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy and press freedom. Furthermore, sitting Cabinet Ministers - who are also members of Parliament - were observed intimidating, threatening, and verbally assaulting fellow MPs under directives believed to have originated from Villa Somalia and the Prime Minister. This not only breaches the principle of separation of powers but also violates the ethics of parliamentary conduct and the oath of office enshrined in Article 106 of the Provisional Constitution. This letter serves as a formal demand to the international community, democratic institutions, and human rights organizations to: o Publicly condemn the actions of the Ex-Speaker and his accomplices in government; o Impose political and legal sanctions on those responsible for these violations of democratic order and fundamental rights; o Demand a full investigation into the abuse of power and mistreatment of both MPs and journalists; o Ensure protection of parliamentary independence, media freedom, and the rights of all Somali citizens, regardless of age or disability. Failure to act swiftly and decisively will normalize these egregious violations and erode the foundations of democracy in Somalia. We ask you not to remain silent as the rule of law is trampled underfoot by those who wield power without accountability. With utmost urgency and gravity, 📷 Dr. Abdillahi Hashi Abib - BA, MA, MASc, Ph.D Member of Foreign Affairs Committee The Federal Republic of Somalia, the House of People Mogadishu, Somalia MP- HOP #201 Awdal Region and Gebileh District Leader of the Accountability and Transparency Caucus of the House of People W: + 1-571-436-7586 M: + 252-6108-22469 Boughali Brahim ابراهيم بوغالي Parliamentarians for Global Action IPUparliament ArabParliament البرلمان العربي وزارة الشؤون الخارجية| MFA-Algeria عبدالمجيد تبون - Abdelmadjid Tebboune Embassy of Algeria in Kenya GOLAHA SHACABKA JFS Rep. Brian Mast House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority Rep. John Moolenaar @committeeonccp Donald J. Trump Secretary Marco Rubio Department of State Treasury Department U.S. Department of Justice Peter Navarro Frank Gaffney Speaker Mike Johnson Rep. Jim Jordan House Freedom Caucus Susie Wiles Stephen Miller Tom Emmer Congressman Brad Finstad Rep. Michelle Fischbach Pete Stauber Marjorie Taylor Greene Hassan Sheikh Mohamud Villa Somalia Hamza Abdi Barre Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nur Madobe Somali Embassy-Qatar🇸🇴 وزارة الخارجية UAE in Somalia Chinese Embassy in Somalia Foreign Ministry 🇸🇦 U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia EU Delegation Somalia Italy in Somalia UNSOM Türkiye in Somalia UNDP Somalia Mike Nithavrianakis World Bank Africa IMF Africa

MP Dr Abdillahi Hashi Abib

10,389 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The “great” Iran Nuclear Deal by Obama that President Trump HAMMERED from the start. Anyone who posts: “I did not vote for this,” you’re ignorant. EOs do NOT require Legislation. National Emergencies have an automatic 2 year termination clause. To continue NEs, it requires: Pen, Paper, and President. Executive Order 12170, by Jimmy Carter, declared a National Emergency with IRAN in 1979. Why is the OLDEST National Emergency in place with IRAN? Why did the bureaucrats on both sides keep continuing this every 2 years and never dealt with for 37 years? Why did the bureaucrats allow Iran to build Nuclear Facilities for 37 years? "Biden" had “Democratic control of the House and Senate” from 2021—2023... Yet continued 8 EOs with 8 National Emergencies by PDJT that would've automatically terminated in 2 years by Law? All of which are: Deporting Illegal Migrants Enforcing DOGE Froze assets of funding PRC Taking back the Panama Canal Eliminating Stock and Trader fraud Combatting all forms of Human Rights Abuse Eliminating Lawfare and Election Interference Destroying Big Pharma, Opioids and Illicit Drugs Combatting all forms of Trafficking And: Ending foreign wars declared in EOs with National Emergencies from 1979 to 2016. Obama declared the National Emergency with Yemen in an Executive Order in 2012 that was continued every 2 years by Congress to PDJT. Why would “Biden” and Dems listen to PDJT speeches what he was going to do in 2025—2029, yet keep those active to enforce, without skipping a beat, starting Jan. 20, 2025? The War Order was introduced in the Democratic controlled House on Dec. 20, 2019, under PDJT. A DEMOCRATIC controlled House introduced the War Order under PDJT. The past 9 years all outline: 👉🏻 Special Operations, Unconventional and Irregular Warfare. 👉🏻 Military Occupation, and Continuity of Government. 👉🏻 Government in Exile and Puppet State. BIPARTISAN with MULTIPLE World Leaders. PDJT is the FIRST President to create a Strategic Plan for Subterranean Warfare = Underground/Tunnels. Iran and Israel Operations are outlined in our Army Publications in 2019. 4 Ways Military pairs with Federal Laws: Executive Orders, National Emergencies, Proclamations, Treaties. Presidential Emergency Action Documents part of a Continuity of Government Plan. PEADs are PRE-PLANNED and expand Power of the President and are Executive Orders, National Emergencies, Proclamations, Treaties. The COG was invoked in EO 13961, Dec. 7, 2020. If “Biden” was president, he’d had same power as every other, so, why not revoke the EO on Jan. 20, 2021, versus let it run from Dec. 7, 2020, to Jan. 19, 2025, to the last full day of presidency? PARTIALLY revoked = STILL in COG. What are the odds COG is found in Joint Operation 3.0 dated Jan. 17, 2017, and the new Federal Continuity Directive 1 was issued Jan. 17, 2017? And the same odds that Joint Planning 5.0 dated June 16, 2017, following the issue of Federal Continuity Directive 2 issued June 13, 2017, designed to support Joint Operation 3.0? When you have unequivocal proof of a COG... You have unequivocal proof of PEADs. PDT issues a NSPM-2 in 2017 with Order of Succession. “Biden” "renewed" the NSPM-2 but did NOT have an OoS = continuing COG. PDT issues a 2nd NSPM-2 in 2025 with OoS. The NSPM-2 OoS is SPECIFICALLY for a: COG. The OoS starting with Sec of State is also for COG. Every other Pres. had an OoS in the Dept of DEF and a National Security Strategy since their origin, except "Biden." The most RECENT OoS in the Dept of DEF is from EO 13963, Dec. 10, 2020, found in DoDI 3020.26, "DoD Continuity Policy," June 4, 2024. COG for Dept of DEF. Current was 83.7%. Obama said 3.67%. Obama said 6,104 centrifuges. Current 14,000 in Fordow. The Deal = no enrichment at all in Fordow. Current Enrichment was 83.7% from 3.67%? Obama lied. 🔥💩 PDT is terminating the EOs and NEs by SWAMP. Yes, yes you did vote for this morons. 🫡♟️🇺🇸

Derek Johnson

197,902 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Today I asked the Senate to support my COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022. This bill would have protected Australians from discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status across Australia, including in employment, education, accommodation, and services. It would have applied to the Commonwealth, States, Territories, and non-government entities, ensuring individuals are not unfairly treated due to their vaccination status. It would have protected free movement within and between States and given parents greater power to protect their children from vaccination coercion. This bill would have upheld Australians' rights and freedoms against government overreach and abuse. I would like to thank the Coalition and Senator Babet for their support, but unfortunately, the legislation was voted down by Labor and the Greens, with assistance from key crossbenchers who chose to abstain from the vote. Senators Lambie, Tyrell, Pocock, Van and Thorpe were all absent from the chamber, allowing Labor, the Greens and Senator Payman the numbers to defeat this vital legislation. To add insult to injury, Labor used their speaking time to insult Australians who support my legislation as fringe conspiracy theorists. How shameful. We raised this issue first in 2021 when parliamentary sittings were being held remotely while the jabs were being rolled out and lockdowns were being imposed. Bureaucrats and elected representatives deliberately trampled all over the democratic rights of the Australian people during this time, and discrimination against those who stood for the right to choose was at its worst. One Nation introduced an updated version of the legislation in November 2022, and here we are now debating it in 2024, with discrimination against people who refuse vaccinations continuing even today. Australians who stand for the right to choose are ordinary Australians. They are doctors, nurses, and paramedics, caring for our health. They are police officers enforcing the law and keeping us safe. They are soldiers, sailors, and aviators defending our sovereignty. They are people who work alongside us in offices, factories, mines, farms, or shops. They are volunteers helping their communities, people in line with us at Centrelink, and people sitting next to us in corporate boardrooms. They are people who live next door, down the street, across town, and interstate. They are people born here and overseas, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, men and women, adults and children—they are our people, our fellow citizens. The pandemic of discrimination, which was unleashed upon our fellow Australians, took many forms. They were demonised not only by our own country but internationally, by elected governments, unelected health bureaucrats, and a disturbingly compliant media. They were physically beaten by police for protesting vaccine mandates and hair-trigger lockdowns, destroying their families, jobs, businesses, and the economy. They were attacked in parliament by their very own elected representatives. Thousands lost their jobs and livelihoods with little to no prospect on the horizon, and many are still denied employment in their fields today because they, like me, refused to allow that crap to be injected into their bodies. COVID-19 vaccine mandates are still in place in many jurisdictions, representing nothing less than petty, vindictive discrimination and naked vaccine coercion more than a year after the pandemic was effectively over. However, some vaccine mandates are no longer in place. In February this year, the Queensland Supreme Court ruled them illegal on the grounds that they breached the human rights of the police and nurses upon whom they were imposed. That has been One Nation's position on vaccine mandates all along. The vaccine mandates, discrimination, and coercion were not only a fundamental breach of the basic human right to choose, but they also violated the Australian Constitution. I draw the Senate's attention to section 51.23(a), which states that parliaments can make laws with respect to the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, pharmaceutical benefits, sickness and hospital benefits, and medical and dental services, but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription. What were the vaccine mandates if not civil conscription imposed on the Australian people by the coronavirus? The Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, knew he couldn't mandate the vaccines because it would go against the Constitution, so he handed it over to the premiers to enforce it on the people and businesses. I also note the valedictory speech of former New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet last week. He acknowledged that while vaccines saved lives, mandates were wrong, and people's personal choices should not have cost them their jobs. He admitted that more respect for freedom was needed and that if a pandemic comes again, there must be a better balance between encouraging people to take action and protecting fundamental liberty. A mandate is still in place for NSW Health workers, and firefighters who refuse to be jabbed are still being refused work even now, long after their counterparts have not been forced to have the jabs since December 2021. I believe the same is happening in Victoria with the firefighters there, unless things have changed. The pandemic of discrimination against Australians cost taxpayers an eye-watering $18 billion to buy vaccines that were not only ineffective in preventing infection and transmission but also caused immense harm to many thousands of Australians and millions across the world. The Therapeutic Goods Administration recorded more than 144,000 adverse reactions in Australia, an astronomical amount compared to other vaccines. The evidence is clear—these untried and untested medicines have caused significant harm to human health. Young men across the world are experiencing heart problems, women’s menstrual cycles have been disrupted, and there has been an increase in miscarriages and birth defects. There are far fewer kidney transplants taking place due to a sudden shortage of healthy kidneys. There is also an unexplained spike in deaths in Australia and around the world, which is not related to getting the virus. Additionally, we are now seeing a rise in cancer cases. To those who had this vaccine, I am sorry to tell you—you have compromised your body and your health. One cardiologist said that by having the jabs, you have compromised your heart 100 percent. This is what the government and bureaucrats have done to you. You were led like sheep to the slaughter, forced to have this vaccination against your will. If you wanted to have the vaccine, that was your choice, but when people were forced and lost their jobs because they had to have the vaccine, that is what I am angry about. Bureaucrats in Australia have been indemnified from the consequences of imposing these harmful mandates. That needs to be reversed. Australians are demanding accountability for being forced to accept vaccinations proven to be harmful to their health. We must unpack the entire Australian response to the pandemic, see the health advice which led to these mandates, and act before the World Health Organization treaty is imposed on the world. The only way to do this is to follow One Nation's policy to establish a royal commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by all Australian governments. But they will not do it because both the Liberal-National Party government and state Labor governments are guilty of it. However, the people want answers and for leaders to stand up and admit their mistakes. The mental and physical health issues that people are dealing with due to the vaccine are numerous, and I am often told by those who have health issues that they had the vaccine. I say, "Do not have any more." People were not allowed to see their loved ones, even those in aged care homes. They were dying because they were distraught and couldn't see their family. How many people in good health have suddenly died from heart failure? How many former Olympians or other healthy people have suddenly died from heart attacks? These deaths were hidden and buried, with no autopsies done. Even an inquiry that One Nation initiated with Pfizer and Moderna claimed, "No, no one was forced." What a load of rubbish. Why did the government indemnify these pharmaceutical companies? We were giving vaccinations to people that were not tried, tested, or proven. Every batch manufactured was not tested, and that was the problem. I will continue to fight for the people until we get a royal commission into this. One Nation is the only party fighting for this, and I respect those who have also stood up for this cause. The people are demanding answers and accountability. They want leaders with backbone who will be upfront with the Australian people. If we do not address this now, the next time a similar situation arises, the same mistakes will be repeated.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

144,024 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, Calls for Immediate Resignation of RPV Leadership Following Devastating 2025 Election Losses Leesburg, VA – November 10, 2025 – In the wake of the Republican Party's crushing defeats in Virginia's 2025 statewide elections, Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, today issued a urgent call for the immediate resignation of Mark Peake, Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV), the executive leadership, and every member of the State Central Committee who has worked as a consultant or company in the last 5 years for any candidate or PAC in Virginia. This demand comes as Democrats swept the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races, marking a complete takeover of statewide executive offices and signaling a profound failure of RPV leadership. "The results of Tuesday's election are not just disappointing—they are a damning indictment of the RPV's entrenched leadership," said Scott Pio. "For too long, the RPV has operated as a dysfunctional entity, prioritizing personal gain and complacency over growth, strategy, and victory. The fault for these losses lies squarely at the feet of the current RPV Chairman, executive leadership, and State Central Committee members who have allowed the party to atrophy while Democrats built a formidable machine. If they had any sense of accountability, they would step down immediately to allow fresh, competent leadership to rebuild our party from the ground up." Scott Pio outlined the following reasons for the demanded resignations, each highlighting systemic failures under the current RPV leadership: • Current Vote Counts in Statewide Races: Due to the abysmal performance in the 2025 elections, where Democrat Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Winsome Earle-Sears for Governor with approximately 57% to 42% of the vote; Democrat Ghazala Hashmi defeated Republican John Reid for Lieutenant Governor with roughly 55% to 44%; and Democrat Jay Jones defeated Republican Jason Miyares for Attorney General with about 52% to 46%. These lopsided results, with Republicans failing to break 50% in any statewide contest, reflect a complete strategic collapse and an inability to mobilize voters, directly attributable to the RPV's poor planning and execution. With the numbers as you see them below, Winsome would have had to perform at Donald Trump levels to defeat Abigail. Winsome would never have the chance to win unless the Republican Party is working to convert voters and grow the party. Glenn Youngkin would have lost against Abigail having it been a re-election. Republicans are outnumbered in Virginia. We MUST start converting and growing the party to overcome these odds, less we suffer the same fate as Oregon, Washington, California, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Winsome Sears – 1,434,133 Abigail Spanberger – 1,921,045 Donald Trump – 2,075,085 Kamala Harris – 2,335,395 Glenn Youngkin – 1,663,158 Terry McAuliffe – 1,599,470 • Loss of Confidence from Grassroots Leadership: Grassroots Republicans across Virginia have lost all faith in the RPV due to repeated betrayals and neglect. Local party chairs, volunteers, and activists feel abandoned, as the state leadership has prioritized insider dealings over empowering the base, leading to widespread disillusionment and low turnout that sealed our electoral fate. • Loss of Strategic Vision and Failure to Learn from 2017: The RPV has shown no ability to adapt since 2017, when Republicans squandered a supermajority in the House of Delegates, narrowly holding onto control before hemorrhaging nearly 30 seats over the ensuing decade. This pattern of complacency—ignoring shifting demographics, urban-suburban trends, and voter priorities—has turned Virginia from a battleground into a Democratic stronghold under the current leadership. Virginia will continue to be blue until we stop ignoring the shifting immigrant demographics. The idea that the RPV doesn’t have Instagram, YouTube or TikTok should show everyone that they seriously lack vision to persuade voters. If the RPV doesn’t start investing in converting voters, we will never be a Republican state again. • Mindset Against Party Growth: Rather than actively expanding the Republican tent through outreach and recruitment, RPV leaders have adopted a defeatist attitude, assuming existing voters would suffice without investment in new coalitions in the largest Indian, Arab and Latino minority communities. This shortsighted "wait and see" approach has allowed Democrats to outpace us in voter registration, permanent absentee registration and engagement, directly contributing to our statewide wipeout. If the statewide party continues to ignore the Arab, Indian and Latino voters, then it will forever lose Virginia. There is NO turning back if we shut those voters out of our American Freedom Party. • Ignoring Internal Polling Warnings: Internal statewide polling undoubtedly revealed the dire state of our campaigns months ago, yet leadership failed to pivot, allocate resources differently, or address vulnerabilities. This willful blindness to data and refusal to course-correct exemplifies a leadership team more interested in using old, tired techniques rather than winning. Their ineffective strategies of holding rally after rally in half empty halls while 1 mile away from polling precincts MUST come to an end. They should be kissing babies and shaking hands rather than standing on a stage. • Leaving Uncontested Seats: In a shocking display of negligence, the RPV left 15 seats uncontested in the 2025 House of Delegates elections and 20 in 2023, handing Democrats free wins and demoralizing potential candidates. This failure to field slates in all districts underscores a profound lack of recruitment effort and organizational incompetence. Enhanced data and technologies make this task rather easy while the voters suffer. Each House of Delegate seat represents nearly 60,000 voters. Ignoring 900,000 voters in 2025 and 1,200,000 voters in 2023 could be the difference between a statewide victory or statewide defeat. • Lack of Training and Resources for Candidates and Committees: RPV leadership has provided minimal training, funding, or logistical support to candidates and committees, leaving them to fend for themselves against well-resourced Democratic opponents. Without workshops on messaging, fundraising, or voter outreach, our nominees were set up for failure from the start. The consistent neglect of these foundational basic things, there is no wonder why seats go unfilled across the state. With the incredible lack of support for our candidates and committees, you must ask yourself if candidates or committees could even be effective? • Consultant-Plagued State Central Committee: With consultants making millions off our donors, candidates and committees, it is no wonder why they seek these elected positions of influence. The State Central Committee is riddled with consultants who view the party as a personal ATM, prioritizing lucrative contracts over electoral success. These self-serving members have blocked accountability measures and reforms, ensuring the RPV remains a gravy train rather than a winning operation while the executive director has taken over $700,000 in salary and reimbursements. The old adage that “No matter if the candidate wins or loses, the consultant keeps getting paid” rings true for our elected state central committee members. The conflict of interest in working for candidates while also being in an elected position capable of leading a ship is disgusting. • Uneven Support for Statewide Candidates: The RPV failed to deliver consistent, dedicated backing to all statewide candidates, favoring some while neglecting others. This fragmented approach left gaps in coordination, messaging, and fieldwork, allowing Democrats to dominate the narrative and airwaves. Every single House of Delegate candidate should be provided with the same exact support as other candidates. Every two years the RPV should be raising a war chest of cash to hand out “starter” checks to each of the 100 House of Delegate Candidates running for office. Whether it be $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000. Each candidate that is willing to run under the Republican flag deserves our support. • Deficiencies in Technology, Machinery, and Donor Relations: Without modern technology platforms, in house tools, user-friendly guides, or robust donor networks, the RPV has handicapped candidates statewide. Outdated systems and poor relationship management have resulted in inefficient operations and insufficient funding, putting Republicans at a severe disadvantage. Relying on consultants to do work that could be done in house wastes time and extremely valuable donor dollars. Without investments in machinery and technology, the RPV severely lacks the ability to compete against any opponent in this century. • Fundamentally Broken Organization: The RPV has failed to transform into a lean, mean activist machine, instead remaining bloated and bureaucratic. The RPV lacks real-world problem-solving expertise, with leaders disconnected from practical goal-setting and execution. This absence of professional management has turned the party into a relic, incapable of driving objectives like voter turnout, issue-based campaigns or goal setting outreach programs. The party should be driving goals and objectives weekly, month after month, year after year. • Failure to Leverage New Laws for Immigrant Outreach: Despite approximately 2,000,000 immigrant citizens calling Virginia home, the RPV has ignored opportunities under new state laws to engage and integrate these communities into our base. This missed chance to grow through targeted outreach represents a strategic blunder of epic proportions. The RPV should be engaging these communities weekly and supporting their causes, yet the RPV does zero community outreach. • Serious Lack of Messaging and Persuasion: The RPV has mandated itself NOT to talk policy or issues. Consultants tell candidates the less information that you share, the more chance a voter will like you. When faced with the blue media, blue messaging and blue onslaught of information, the RPV has mandated itself to remain silent. This serious miscalculation has allowed for the vacuum of communications to be managed and propagated by the left. Without a proper messaging flow like parental rights, 2nd amendment or the 1st amendment, how will voters ever know what Republicans stand for? • Unserious Leadership Exemplified by Mark Peake: State Senator Mark Peake's tenure as the Chairman of the Republican Party, marked by attending galas, posing for photos, and casually showing up on Election Day in a suit while walking his dog, epitomizes the RPV's lack of seriousness. Such performative gestures over substantive work has eroded credibility and contributed to our losses. His inability to think like an activist and drive an activist organization has caused serious damage to our work. Someone should have told Mark Peake that if he wants to be a Senator, then he can give speeches, attend galas and host parties. Activism is about real work, leading troops into battle and planning engagements. He is not an activist. While the Democratic blue wave was formidable, with sweeping victories across the board, Loudoun County Republicans bucked the trend. Under local leadership, we expanded our voter base countywide, increasing Republican vote counts even as statewide Republican turnout retracted. Voters in Loudoun rallied behind our message, proving that with effective strategy, outreach and engagement, growth is possible. If it can be achieved in Loudoun—a diverse, competitive county—it can be replicated statewide under the right leadership at the RPV. Scott Pio warned that if Mark Peake, the executive leadership and compromised State Central resignations do not occur within 30 days, he will personally spearhead "The Mount Vernon Project," modeled after Turning Point USA's successful campaign against the RNC. When Charlie Kirk mobilized to oust Ronna McDaniel and replace complacent RNC members, it revitalized the national party. Similarly, our Mount Vernon Project will launch a full-scale effort to unseat and replace every ineffective RPV leader, restoring accountability and vigor to the Republican Party of Virginia. Importantly, Scott Pio emphasized that the campaigns of Winsome Earle-Sears, John Reid, and Jason Miyares bear no blame for their defeats. These dedicated public servants ran principled races, but were undermined by the RPV's chronic lack of long-term strategic thinking and party-building efforts. The consequences of this leadership vacuum extend far beyond politics. Due to the RPV's inaction and lack of activism, Virginia's kids, families, and communities now face four years of unchecked Democratic rule. This will threaten our First Amendment freedoms through potential censorship and overreach, erode Second Amendment rights with aggressive gun control measures, parental rights, increase drug usage in our communities with legalization of drugs, and compromise public safety by prioritizing progressive policies over law and order. "The time for excuses is over," Scott Pio concluded. "Virginia Republicans deserve better. We demand resignations now to begin the hard work of rebuilding a party that fights—and wins—for conservative values." For more information, contact the Scott Pio, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun at 703-627-5272.

Scott Pio

109,865 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Our Entire Civilization Is Run By Oligarchs And Empire Managers The Wall Street Journal has a new article out titled “The Hidden Debt That Apple Owes to the CIA,” subtitled “Without CIA funding that helped keep NeXT afloat in the ’80s, Steve Jobs might not have made a triumphant return to Apple — and the iPhone might not have its foundational operating code.” All the top tech giants have deep ties to the CIA. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon. Facebook and Instagram are overseen by “former” CIA operatives. Our whole civilization is run by an alliance of oligarchs and empire managers. ❖ In a recent interview with Israel Hayom, Israeli “Minister of Diaspora Affairs” Amichai Chikli said that Zionists need to “cooperate with the conservative mainstream, American and European, against radical Islam.” Chikli argued that the western right doesn’t care about antisemitism, so it doesn’t make sense to place emphasis there, but “radical Islam interests them very much.” I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Zionists promote Islamophobia because convincing westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to like Israel. This is a fact, not an opinion. Last year Drop Site News published a leaked polling report that had been commissioned by the Israeli government which found that while Israel’s reputation is crumbling throughout the western world, one way to salvage it would be to foment panic about Muslims. Drop Site reports the following: “Israel’s best tactic to combat this, according to the study, is to foment fear of ‘Radical Islam’ and ‘Jihadism,’ which remain high, the research finds. By highlighting Israeli support for women’s rights and gay rights while elevating concerns that Hamas wants to ‘destroy all Jews and spread Jihadism,’ Israeli support rebounded by an average of over 20 points in each country. ‘Especially once the situation in Gaza is resolved, the room for growth in all countries is very significant,’ the report concludes.” So if you speak critically about Israel online and suddenly find your replies inundated with Zionists shrieking about Islam and Muslims, that’s why. Their research has concluded that convincing westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel. ❖ The Guardian has published an open letter addressed “to Iran’s political prisoners” from big-name western leftists including Angela Davis, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rashid Khalidi, Robin DG Kelley, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Judith Butler, and Walden Bello. Their screed frames Iran as being equally immoral as the US empire and criticizes anti-imperialists who refuse to condemn Iran in the middle of an imperialist war of aggression against the Islamic Republic. “We reject the false binary of imperialism and hollow anti-imperialism,” the letter says. “We invite global civil society and anti-imperialist activists and organizations to extend their unconditional support and solidarity to all incarcerated kin fighting for our collective liberation, to build relationships with Iranian political prisoners and uplift their voices, to put pressure on the Islamic Republic by challenging its narrative, and to call upon that government to immediately stop all the executions and free all political prisoners.” This, needless to say, is hot garbage. I don’t care who you are, if your “anti-imperialism” leads you to attack the same governments as the CIA and the US State Department, then you’re just another imperialist. It’s so obnoxious and disgusting to be an American and accuse empire-targeted countries of tyranny. This is like being a German in 1940 and spending your energy decrying human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. You live in the heart of the empire, and yet you’re moving your crosshairs away from the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth to denounce one of the few remaining nations who’ve resisted being absorbed into its power umbrella? Fuck off. Shut the fuck up you ridiculous wanker. I cannot stand all these western “leftists” and “anarchists” who insist on placing the western empire on equal or near-equal footing with the governments it targets. All they do is nullify anti-war sentiment and help grease the wheels for the imperial propaganda machine by legitimizing militarist narratives about how the people need rescuing from the evil regime and giving uninformed leftists the false impression that we’re watching two equally evil forces battling it out. Stop being pro bono Pentagon propagandists and get your shit together, assholes. ❖ The answer to the question “Why is that terrible thing happening?” is usually “Because it makes some rich white guys wealthier” or “Because it helps shore up US planetary domination” or “Because Israel wants it,” and it’s often some combination of all three. ❖ Genocidal apartheid states should not exist and do not have a right to exist. I said this on Twitter the other day and someone yelled at me for saying terrible things about Israel. I replied, “How did you know I was talking about Israel?” ❖ Saying you can support Israel without being a racist is like saying you could support the transatlantic slave trade without being a racist. ❖ You can get a picture of how insane western society is by imagining what would happen if Iran successfully assassinated Trump. The entire western political/media class would act like something outrageous and evil had just happened, but any sane person would know it was fair play. ❖ The dumbest argument I’ve heard in favor of religion is “Oh so you’re saying the majority of humanity is wrong??” Of course they are. Have you seen humanity? The majority is wrong about a great many things. They only just began figuring out that Israel is bad, for fuck’s sake. We live in a highly controlled and indoctrinated society where people are aggressively propagandized by the powerful to believe things which benefit the powerful. It is not safe to vote with the majority in such a civilization. The mainstream worldviews we are given to choose from are made of pure power-serving bullshit. This isn’t a comment on religion itself; I personally couldn’t care less if you are religious. I’m just saying in an insane society like the one we live in, you’ve got to have the courage to stand on your own and rely on your own reasoning. You might make mistakes, but figuring it out on your own has a much higher probability of finding the truth than following the herd while trapped inside a mind-controlled dystopia. ❖ Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

30,594 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Ghengis Khan was not an "evil tyrant", but actually one of the most compassionate leaders in human history. His first law as Khan, for example, was to ban bridal kidnapping. After, he created a welfare system for captured women in which they were financially cared for, along with their children. Captured women and children were allowed full rights and integration within the Mongol civilization. Captured children, especially, were encouraged to join the military and could rise to its highest ranks like any other Mongol. “As long as men kidnapped women, there would be feuding on the steppes. Genghis Khan’s first new law reportedly forbade the kidnapping of women, almost certainly a reaction to the kidnapping of his wife”. Furthermore, he “forbade the abduction and enslavement of any Mongol", ending all slavery within his lands. The motivation of these laws was due to the facts that Chingis was born from a kidnapped mother, enslaved as a boy, and his first wife was kidnapped. It is suspected by all scholars and especially the children of Chingis, that his first son was illegitimate and that the true father was the kidnapper of his wife. The child's name translated into english is something like "visitor", proving this claim to scholars. Yet, despite this problem, Chingis always insisted his first son was legitimate and consistently tried to make him the sole inheritor of the Empire, a task he failed to accomplish. These actions prove, without a doubt, the quality of Chingis' compassionate character. For those who do live in the steppe as I do, you may be surprised to know that bridal kidnapping is the most common form of marriage now today in the region with the sole exception of Mongolia. Locally, in Kyrgyzstan, we practice two types of kidnapping - "Ala-ka-chu" and "kyz kuumai". Ala-ka-chu is a forced kidnapping where men form a type of gang and plot the kidnapping of a local woman. Typically, the "rules" are that if a man kidnaps a woman and brings her to his home for 24 hours, she becomes his property. Families can even coordinate together to kidnap a woman and force her hand in marriage. Women are stolen so commonly, even a student from my university was abducted right in front of the gate recently. Ala-ka-chu is not an authentic tradition but rather an unjustly modified version of a legitimate tradition called "kyz kuumai", a consensual form of bridal kidnapping in which a man races after a woman on horseback and if he captures her, she becomes his property. If the woman wrestles the man or escapes from him, then she declines the marriage. It's her choice. Typically, it's like a quick game of chase, the woman allows the man to kiss her on the cheek and then she jumps off his horse into the sunset. Ancient Mongolia was much like my world in that sense that women and goods would constantly be stolen again and again and again in an endless cycle by all the various rival tribes. The kidnappings were always of the most violent character. Women, like Hoelun (Chingis Khan's mother), would routinely throw themselves to their kidnappers by submission so that their families could escape and survive. Chingis Khan was the sole person to stop this trend in Mongolia forever. These violent practices may continue today in various regions of the steppe, but never in Mongolia. The benevolence of Chingis Khan becomes clear with this example alone. His genius can be further seen with his tax policies. He established a free tax zone throughout the Silk Road. "He lowered taxes for everyone, and abolished them altogether for doctors, teachers, priests, and educational institutions.” Generally, there was a maximum of a 10% flat tax at maximum. We often look down upon Chingis Khan as some type of monster, yet his citizens had some of the lowest tax rates in human history, or, at the least, certainly lower than anything we currently face. Keep in mind, when we discuss "taxes" we mean captured enemies like Chinese farmers. Mongolian herdsmen, for example, paid a 1% tax. Military members could void all taxes by simply performing various acts of community service. With such an abundance of new cultures consistently conquered, Chingis Khan became perplexed. These foreign populations never fought over women as they did at home. Instead, the sedentary folk fought over religion. To solve this problem, “Genghis Khan decreed complete and total religious freedom for everyone. Although he continued to worship the spirits of his homeland, he did not permit them to be used as a national cult.” It is indeed written that Chingis' motivation for religious freedom laws was due to infighting between captured enemies, yes. However, I like to think personally that this law hails from his early exposure to Christians. For example, his father was named “Yesugei", translating to "Jesua" after Jesus. The Khan of his father and the first Khan Chingis served was a devout Christian, along with a majority of his members. This is not to say they experienced Christianity like a modern person. Certainly they were Mongols first, and Christians second. It is additionally important to note that the Empire was always ruled by women, while the men were at war. These women rulers were typically of a Christian orientation themselves, rather than a Tengrianist like Chingis. Meanwhile, the scholars of Chingis' day were Tibetan Buddhists, Chinese Confucians, or most often Persian Muslims. Religious freedom was an obvious necessity. The answer of why no Westerner knows any positive attributes of Chingis Khan is due to a mistranslation in name. The Mongols were a mysterious, unknown force to the Europeans. The Rus originally confused them with the Tatar peoples. The Tatars were a tribe focused in the South Russia. In the 1100s, they were on par with the Mongols and were the sworn enemy of Yisügei, the father of Chingis Khan, who they later killed by poison. Eventually, Chingis had his revenge, defeated the Tatars, and then incorporated them into his army, along with dozens of other turkic tribes throughout the region. The Europeans built upon the Rus translations and referred to the Mongols as “Tartars”, “a play on the Latin word for hell, ‘Tatarus’”. On older maps, one may find regions referenced as “Tartary” or “Tartaria”; these lands are simply the territories controlled by the Mongols (and various Turkic tribes) until the Soviet era. It is logical for Westerners to continually liken the Mongols with demons from hell (Tartarus) and exclusively maintain an oral history of terror associated with the Mongols. This information comes to us from the first Catholic friar to visit the Mongols in 1200s. The policy of graciously accepting and then integrating the enemy tribes into the Mongol forces began with the Tatars. When we think of "raping and pillaging" by the Mongols, we confuse it with encouraged integration in which, for the first time in steppe history, enemies were Yes, all the men were killed; you're right. However, the children, as previously clarified were adopted and kindly raised into various positions of power, rather than as slaves, as was the previous system. Ethnically, Mongols are most related to the Tatrs, Khitan, and Turkic tribes. “They asserted, then and now, a direct descent from the Huns, who founded the first empire on the high steppe in the third century. Hun is the Mongolian word for human being, and they called their Hun ancestors Hun-nu, the people of the sun.” The physical appearance of Chingis was never written down and all reference to Chingis' appearance was illegal to capture in art form. All later notions of Chingis' appearance comes from modern art. However, being so closely integrated with Tatars and directly from the Huns does confirm that the Mongols had blonde/orange hair with blue/green eyes, much like any European. "Mixing" most often occurred through consensual inter-marriage between captured women and Mongols. Throughout Chingis' time, the majority of external genetics would have come from inter-marriage between the Persian population (in a very low percentage). Chinese genetics were introduced to the Mongols throughout the rule of Kublai Khan. Kubali successfully conquered the Chinese and formally set up the new Mongol capital in now what is considered Bejing. He massively shifted the focus from Mongol culture and practices to Chinese. The 1200s began the genetic shift in all steppe genetics and cemented them as a "mixed" population. Every semester, I have a minimum of one student cry on me and lament that she should have a more European appearance and that she curses the Mongols for their mixing. It's a core issue at the identity of the steppe folk. Locally, we have a unique genetic anomaly where it is common to see a child with pure white hair and blue eyes come from two parents with black hair and black eyes. We call them "Yenesei Kyrgyz", referencing the original appearance and location of steppe folk in Siberia. The depth of Chingis' khans magnanimity is boundless. In steppe culture, his kindness would be considered boundless without any comparison. My contention is that Westerners fear Mongols for their battle tactics certainly, but majority from the mistranslation related to tartarus. I will begin to write a formal article about the history of Chingis Khan, as noted from a variety of sources including classical French, Persian, Chinese, and more recently American scholars. If this article performs well, I will write a longer form post soon. All ideas in this thread hail from Jack Weatherford's book Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, a commentary on the Secret History of the Mongols, newly translated into English. To conclude, the final reason why Westerns have no accurate information about the Mongols is due to secrecy. Their history is literally translated as The Secret History. All records of the ruling Mongol family were kept hidden. It's not a conspiracy to make this claim, but entirely logical, as seen in Chingis' own law of how he should never be publicly depicted. The Mongol rulers consistently made a substantial effort to keep their lived experience hidden from public view. Later Soviet influence did not help with record keeping. The singular, positive historical record Westerners had access to about the Mongols was from the account of Marco Polo. However, Polo's account focused on Kubali and the then newly formed Chinese-esque empire, rather than the benevolent examples from Chingis' personal legacy.

Rogue | Frontier Philosophy

161,434 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”

DR REHIANA ALI BA MB BCHIR (Cantab) MA MRCP PhD

18,659 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

“Totalitarian” Powers, Fear, And Psychopathy Behind CIA’s Secret Rule Over U.S. The agency remains out of control, beyond the law, and a direct threat to democracy and freedom, including in the U.S. by Michael Shellenberger Last week, we published two stories about a senior CIA whistleblower who was one of four CIA analysts who helped write a January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that falsely claimed, with high confidence, that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help elect President Donald Trump in 2016. The person said that the CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, had a “pathological need for control” and put the writers of the ICA “under duress” to include a mention of a fraudulent dossier, commissioned by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The CIA also included in the classified version of the ICA an annex consisting of the dossier written by a former British spy, which went to roughly 200 people in Washington, some of whom leaked related information to journalists. Unfortunately, the CIA employee said, his employer remains corrupted by “systemic rot” and that crucial steps “have not been put in place" to prevent a Russiagate-like abuse of power from happening again, since the arrival of its new director, John Ratcliffe, in January of this year. “Two critical steps that have not been put in place are,” said the senior analyst turned whistleblower, “to first, formalize expectations about the delivery timeline for sensitive intelligence analyses, and second, to remove the CIA Director from the review process of intelligence reporting or finished analysis.” In response to questions from Public, the CIA said it was taking necessary reforms. “Director Ratcliffe has overhauled the Agency senior ranks and revoked clearances from bad actors and even created a mission center to better execute on Presidential priorities like the Southern Border. The notion that he’s not making significant reforms or holding people and the Agency accountable is not just ridiculously false but beyond absurd.” But the CIA’s revoking security clearances and creating a mission center do not address either of the whistleblower’s recommendations, much less the “systemic rot” within the CIA. The whistleblower called for the removal of the Director of the CIA from review and writing of intelligence analysis, and taking a step to avoid rush jobs, like the kind Brennan used to create a deliberately misleading ICA in January 2017. The whistleblower’s credibility is high. They were one of just four CIA analysts chosen to help write a major ICA. That might make them seem biased toward Brennan, but Ratcliffe has retained the person, rather than fired them, which suggests that the Director or the direct reports he trusts view the person as valuable. Our sense was that the person was loyal to the CIA, wants to engage in objective apolitical analyses, and wants to remain at the CIA. Their two modest proposed reforms are consistent with loyalty to the CIA. As such, the person is precisely the kind of professional the CIA, Congress, and the American people should want to have in our institutions. If a legitimate criticism is to be made of the person it would be that they didn’t turn whistleblower earlier, which is the same criticism that could be made against hundreds and perhaps thousands of people involved in the Russiagate hoax. One might hope that it was just a bad day for the PR people at the CIA, and that Ratcliffe will be out with a new statement this week announcing new reforms, but we are not hopeful. The CIA appears to be following its informal motto, “Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counteraccusations.” That was the advice that former CIA Director Porter Goss said he would give to “a graduating class of CIA case officers” in 2006. The Russiagate hoax is hardly an unusual scandal in the history of the CIA. The agency has “long gone beyond the borders of American values,” noted Tim Weiner in his 812-page history, Legacy of Ashes. The CIA has murdered its employees, overthrown democracies, propped up dictatorships, tortured innocent people, trained death squads, induced mental illness in illegal medical experiments, spied illegally on law-abiding Americans, and may have been behind the assassination of an American president. All of these illegal behaviors required cover-ups, many of them elaborate. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,” said James Angleton, one of the CIA’s founders, and its Director of Counterintelligence for two decades, on his deathbed in 1987. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them there soon.” The CIA’s record is poor when evaluated on its own terms. “The CIA was established to prevent unanticipated disasters, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” noted John Judis in 2005, “but it has repeatedly failed to warn the White House of looming threats. It missed the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, and the Chinese entry into the war that fall; Israel, France, and Great Britain's attack on the Suez Canal and Egypt in 1956; the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968; the Shah of Iran's ouster in 1979; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that year; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990; the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 (‘We didn't have a clue,’ CIA director George Tenet remarked afterwards); the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of American military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole in 2000; and of course the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September 2001.” The truth, admitted a CIA station chief, “was that the agency at the height of its powers had a great reputation and a terrible record.” It never had a single Soviet spy “who had deep insight into the workings of the Kremlin,” and thus didn’t know communism was collapsing. “The one crime of lasting consequence has been the CIA’s inability to carry out its central mission: informing the president of what is happening in the world,” writes Weiner. Its record in the real world is one of “fleeting successes and long-lasting failures.” The politicization and weaponization of the CIA for ideological aims has occurred for decades. The CIA’s charter prevents it from spying on Americans and yet it has done so repeatedly, from opening mail to spying on students. Between 1947 and 1963, the CIA was “a dark and invasive force — at home and abroad — violating citizens’ privacy, kidnapping, torturing, and killing at will,” concluded David Talbot in his 686-page history of the CIA, The Devil’s Chessboard. There were many reforms proposed in the 1970s. In 1975, Congress held hearings, revealing CIA misdeeds around the world, including assassinations using a heart attack gun, and efforts at mind control. Congress then took steps to provide greater oversight of the CIA and more protections for whistleblowers. Calls for reforms began again in the 1990s after a decade of CIA scandals in the 1980s, which included selling weapons to the Iranian government and illegally diverting the money to an equally illegal war in Central America. In 1991 and 1996, the US Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan, who had been one of America’s most influential public intellectuals for thirty years, proposed abolishing the CIA entirely and reassigning its various functions to the State Department. The proposal never came up for a vote. In 1998, America’s intelligence leaders warned the White House that America would suffer “a catastrophic, systemic failure,” unless the U.S. dramatically changed how it gathered and analyzed intelligence. That didn’t happen. Then, in 2001, the CIA failed to communicate with the FBI and thus played a central role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. In 2002, the CIA manipulated intelligence that led to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. In response to these failures, Congress in 2004 sought to reform the agency and the broader Intelligence Community. The intent of Congress in passing new legislation was to reduce the power of the CIA, and its Director, and increase the power of a new intelligence coordinator role, which it called the Director of National Intelligence. That didn’t happen. The “CIA is broken,” wrote John Judis one year later. The 2004 reform act didn’t address the “historical problems with the CIA.” “To repair it,” he concluded, “we may need to start from scratch.” That didn’t happen either. In 2016 and 2017, the CIA manipulated intelligence to falsely frame the democratically elected U.S. president as a puppet for a foreign power, and from 2016 to 2020, individuals who worked at the CIA oversaw various efforts to control what people are allowed to say on social media. Neither the Russiagate hoax scandal nor the CIA’s role in creating a Censorship Industrial Complex resulted in reform or even serious calls for it by Congress. Multiple sources tell Public that the CIA remains both the dominant agency of the 18 total in the IC, and the one most resistant to reforms. The Washington Post reported last week that the CIA resisted efforts for greater transparency led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. And now the CIA has said we should ignore the whistleblowing by one of its most trusted senior analysts, and their demands for reform. None of this is new. In 1947, the year Congress created the CIA, the Secretary of State at the time, Dean Acheson, said he “had the gravest forebodings” about it and “warned the President that neither he” nor anyone else would be able “to control it.” Between 1947 and 2005 there were 14 major studies by various bodies into how to reform the IC. The CIA “has had an almost perfect record of resisting fundamental changes,” noted Weiner in his 2006 book. Meanwhile, Congress has failed its Constitutional duty to provide oversight. “The CIA has tried to assassinate foreign leaders, mined harbors, and most recently, tortured prisoners,” wrote Judis in 2005. “If Congress had openly debated these actions, they would not have been approved.” They didn’t and have never much demanded to be able to. Members of Congress “have been derelict in this work for much of the past three decades,” noted Weiner two years later, “but their conduct since 9/11 has bordered on criminal negligence.” Looking at the full historical record, it is hard not to conclude that the American people only partially govern themselves, that we are burdened with a rogue and violent intelligence agency that continuously interferes not only in foreign elections and governments but also our own, and that many on the Right and the Left who appear to be in a position to change that refuse to do so. Why is that? Why have Congress and the American people failed for 80 years to reform a rogue intelligence agency that is not only ineffective but also destructive to the point of undermining national security? And what, if anything, can be done about it? If you're not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech and democracy, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

48,655 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 240911 19:00 KST Hyein: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. Minji: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. Danielle: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. Haerin: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. Hanni: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. Minji: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us. Hanni: I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Hee-jin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next. Minji: Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. Hanni: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Hee-jin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. Minji: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. Danielle: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. Haerin: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. Hyein: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. Minji: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. Hanni: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow HYBE's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Hee-jin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. Hyein: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. Danielle: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee-jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. Minji: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee-jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. NewJeans: Thank you. #NewJeans_Never_Die #NeverForget

1tokki

19,445 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE

1tokki

3,765,906 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren