Drug Dealer Escaped Deportation as it Would Hurt Mother’s Mental Health: Report

A migrant drug dealer reportedly avoided deportation from Britain after arguing that his removal would cause mental health issues for his mother.

UK Home Office efforts to remove convicted Portuguese robber and drug dealer Fabio Indiai from the country were stymied after the migrant’s lawyers convinced a judge that being deported would breach his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Daily Mail reported.

A judge found that the provision, which guarantees the “right to respect for private and family life”, would have been breached by removing Indiai because it would negatively impact the mental health of his mother, to whom Indiai allegedly provides day-to-day support.

The Portuguese migrant was previously imprisoned in 2021 for intent to supply Class-A drugs after being arrested with over £1,000 of cocaine, ketamine, and MDMA.

Additionally, Indiai had also served 18 months in a youth prison for robbery in 2012. While the Home Office did not seek to deport him after the initial offence, the government department did seek to remove him from the country following the end of his sentence for drug dealing.

Commenting on the decision to allow him to remain in the country, Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick said: “You can’t make it up. And you can’t defend it. We must leave the ECHR.”

Although the United Kingdom left the European Union in 2020, its membership in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its associated court in France was unaffected as it is technically a separate body from the EU, despite being so closely aligned as to share the same campus in Strasbourg, the same flag, and the same anthem.

The continued jurisdiction of the ECHR over British immigration policy has had significant consequences, including the derailment of the former Conservative government’s plan to send illegal boat migrants to asylum processing centres in Rwanda rather than allowing them to remain in the UK while their claims are processed, a process which often takes years.

Whether or not the country should withdraw from the ECHR has been a chief dividing line within the Tory leadership contest to replace Rishi Sunak at the helm of the Conservatives. Nigerian heritage former equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has so far rejected the idea of leaving the institution, arguing that it would do little to help the UK’s immigration crisis.

On the other hand, former immigration minister Jenrick has made leaving the ECHR the central thrust of his campaign. However, critics such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and others have questioned Jenrick’s tack to the right on the issue, suggesting that the Tory MP was merely attempting to imitate him and his policies to fend off a challenge from Reform.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/11/01/drug-dealer-escapes-deportation-as-it-would-hurt-mothers-metal-health

Pfizer, Moderna mRNA COVID Shots Linked to Higher Risk of Acute Heart Disease

Montreal, CA – 16 March 2021: Vials of Astrazeneca, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccinesShutterstock

People who received one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine had a higher risk of acute heart disease compared with those who received one dose of a non-mRNA COVID-19 shot, according to a new peer-reviewed study.

A team of South Korean researchers, who published their report on Oct. 24 in Epidemiology and Infection, said the heightened risk was most pronounced among people ages 10 to 59 compared with those age 60 and older.

The study authors analyzed the health data of 3,350,855 people who received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine from February 2021 to March 2022. The authors obtained the data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service (NHIS).

South Korea administered five types of COVID-19 vaccines: the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA shots, and the AstraZeneca, Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) and Novavax non-mRNA shots.

The study authors wanted to see if receiving a first dose of a particular type of COVID-19 vaccine was associated with developing acute heart disease within 21 days post-vaccination.

They also sought to determine if developing a COVID-19 infection within 21 days after the first vaccine dose was linked to a higher risk of acute heart disease.

To find out, they analyzed cardiac adverse events “including acute cardiac injury, acute myocarditis, acute pericarditiscardiac arrest, and cardiac arrhythmia, in relation to vaccine type and COVID-19 within 21 days after the first vaccination date,” according to their report.

“The results revealed higher heart disease risk in individuals receiving mRNA vaccines than other types,” they wrote. “Individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 also exhibited significantly higher heart disease risk than those uninfected.”

The study authors didn’t find a statistically significant interaction between individuals’ COVID-19 infection status and the type of COVID-19 vaccine they received — meaning the higher risk wasn’t contingent on the person having both a COVID-19 infection and an mRNA vaccination.

However, they did find that younger people who received mRNA vaccines had a higher heart disease risk compared to those 60 and up.

Dr. Peter McCullough, who posted the South Korean study on his Substack, said public health agencies never studied the comparative safety of the different COVID-19 vaccine types.

There should be “investigations into why the agencies preferentially promoted mRNA vaccines despite their higher risk of cardiovascular events,” McCullough added.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense , told The Defender that “overall” the study was “compelling.” He said:

“Elevated risk of acute heart disease for mRNA products over others is biologically plausible, even beyond the well-established myocarditis and pericarditis.

“This study highlights the potential for a population-based approach to reveal such harms.”

Authors call for more research

The authors said their study had some limitations. For instance, they only looked at cardiac adverse events reported during the three weeks following the first vaccination dose.

They explained why they had to do this:

“In our analysis, an adverse event related to the vaccine was considered to be a new acute heart disease-related diagnosis occurring within 21 days of the first dose vaccination date.

“This operational definition was necessary because we lacked information on the specific association between COVID-19 vaccines and diagnostic codes in the NHIS COVID-19 database.

“Given that the recommended interval between the first and second vaccine doses for Pfizer/bioNTech was 21 days, we concentrated on infections occurring within 21 days after the initial vaccine dose.”

It would have been “particularly useful,” they said, if their study could have looked at cardiac adverse events following the second dose. Other recent studies have shown the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis to be highest after the second dose of mRNA vaccines.

They called for more research.

Jablonowski said the study’s results might be skewed due to “the very difficult dimension of time.”

“The authors do an incredible job with the data they have,” he said. “But if not all vaccine types were available at the same time, you’re going to introduce a temporal bias.” He added:

“The authors could have plotted a chart that showed the administration of vaccination type over time — and even overlayed that with disease incidence of COVID-19 infection and the heart diseases under inspection.

“Such a plot may demonstrate how susceptible the study is to temporal bias.”

South Korean government funded the study via a National Research Foundation of Korea grant.

The study’s corresponding author did not immediately respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-moderna-mrna-covid-shots-acute-heart-disease-risk/?utm_id=20241028

Europe’s German Problem

Today, Germany embraces the ideologies of “green energy” and a zero-carbon society — a society that no longer emits CO2. Germans seem serious about ideology; they seem serious about everything. Once they buy into an ideology, it might be hard to change their mind.

This is how Chancellor Angela Merkel came to power (2005-2021). Many forget that she did not emerge from the extreme green left, although judging by her record, one might think so. She came, in fact, from the CDU/CSU, Germany’s “center-right” party.

Merkel’s record is clear: 1) the demographic Islamization of Germany by opening its doors to a flood of migrants alien to German culture, and apparently with less than no interest in absorbing it; 2) the subordination of Germany’s energy to Russia, 3) the destruction of Germany’s nuclear heritage. If Merkel had have been an agent of the Russian regime — which trained her — she might have acted no differently.

With Merkel gone, Germany finds itself on an accelerating trajectory of impoverishment. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the German Economy Ministry now projects a 0.2% GDP contraction for 2024, reversing its earlier prediction of 0.3% growth. Germany also faces industrial annihilation.

BASF, for instance, a flagship of Germany’s industrial sector since 1865, symbolizes the nation’s manufacturing strength. With nearly 400 production sites across 80 countries, its heart remains in Ludwigshafen, Germany, where it operates a vast complex with 200 plants and employs around 39,000 people. However, this hub has recently become a focal point for BASF’s challenges.

Over the past two years, the company has shut down one of its two ammonia units and idled several others at this location due to their lack of competitiveness, resulting in the loss of 2,500 jobs, explains Chemical and Engineering News. BASF also experienced a significant decline in 2023, with sales dropping by 21.1% and adjusted earnings plunging by 60.1%. Adding to these woes, BASF recently announced plans to cut costs by an additional $1.1 billion in Ludwigshafen, foreshadowing further job cuts.

As a result of this industrial disaster, the German establishment is confronting a democratic revolt by growing segments of its people, as shown by the recent regional elections in Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg, which saw the surge of the right-wing AfD party, which demands that Germany say goodbye to the green energy myths that are destroying its industry.

One might have hoped that the German right would learn a few lessons from the Merkel disaster. It has not. Federal polls and the recent regional elections seem to agree, predicting a disaster for the left, while the center-right CDU/CSU and the right-wing AfD are on the ascent.

While logic demands that the center-right and the right, which together have a large majority, govern — their policy convergences, whether on migration or energy, are numerous — the center-right has made clear its absolute refusal to govern with the AfD, in any way whatsoever.

This is forcing the CDU to consider governing tomorrow with… the Greens, Europe’s most radical extreme left (along with the Belgian and French environmentalists) — the party most opposed to the CDU on the issues of migration, the environment and prioritizing nuclear energy. The movement responsible for the destruction of Germany’s energy resources, and a direct accomplice of the Russian regime and under its patronage — the Greens — who signed and celebrated the dismantling of Germany’s nuclear power stations in the middle of the war in Ukraine after destruction of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline; nuclear power stations that were still operational and could have continued to produce cheap energy for years.

Is the CDU actually preparing to close the borders with those who want to abolish borders; to send back unintegrable migrants despite the Greens’ opposition to deportation; to lower energy prices with the authors of the very policies that caused the prices to explode in the first place, and to counter Islamism with the help of its most dedicated allies?

This collaboration is being facilitated by a massive ideological convergence: both the CDU and the Greens believe in the necessity of the Energiewende (“energy transition”). The elimination of fossil fuels and nuclear power is to be replaced by the “renewable energies” — mainly wind and solar — which are intermittent, often unaffordable and of limited practical use. Wind and solar are massively impacted by weather conditions. Solar panels produce less on cloudy days, and wind turbines generate less during calm periods. This variability makes it difficult to ensure a consistent energy output.

The center-right CDU supports the market economy, the Atlantic alliance and German industry — but also adheres to environmentalists’ ideology. That view helps to explain why the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament — in which the CDU is a member party — appointed Ursula von der Leyen as head of the European Commission. Under her leadership of the European Union, the economy is collapsing, industry is disappearing and Islamism is proliferating. Supposedly, all of that does not matter because Europeans have the Holy Grail: the “energy transition” to a “zero-carbon” Europe, and more regulations than all the other civilizations combined.

Unfortunately, that policy is an absolute myth. “Zero-carbon Europe”, a physical impossibility, will never happen. Even if it did, it would make no difference to the global explosion in CO2 emissions. Europe accounts for just 8% of global CO2 emissions. Even if Europe ceased to exist, it would make little difference to global CO2 emissions. They would continue to grow on all five continents. The destruction of European industry by the German right would have no effect on the climate — zero.

Today, with environmentalists touting the “zero-carbon society” and “100% renewable energy,” Germany has locked itself in myths hardly better than the Lebensraum of the previous century.

Today, as yesterday, these myths risk precipitating the ruin not only of Germany, but of the whole of Europe.

To get Germany and Europe out of this rut, would it not be more constructive for the CDU to consider governing with the AfD?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21075/europe-german-problem

As Attacks Intensify, Trump Becomes More Popular – Maybe Trump-bashing isn’t all its cracked up to be

It’s hard to measure the intensity of negative media coverage of former President Donald Trump, but it’s safe to say it’s rising as Election Day approaches. What’s interesting to note is that in the face of unrelentingly negative coverage — at a high level now, but negative for a long time — the public views Trump more favorably than it has since he entered politics.

Asking voters whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a politician is a staple of polling. The politician is referred to as being underwater if his unfavorable rating is higher than his favorable rating. When it comes to favorability, Trump has been underwater forever.

On this date in 2016, Trump’s unfavorable rating exceeded his favorable rating by 26 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. That is huge. But, of course, Trump was elected president a short time later, indicating that favorable ratings are not everything.

On this date in 2020, Trump, after four years as president, had gotten more popular. But he was still underwater; his unfavorable rating exceeded his favorable rating by 11 points. Even though that was significantly better than four years earlier, he narrowly lost his bid for reelection.

Now, less than three weeks before Election Day, Trump’s unfavorable rating exceeds his favorable rating by just seven points. “If you believe that Donald Trump has somehow become less popular over time, let me change your mind about that,” CNN analyst Harry Enten said recently. “In fact, he is more popular at this point in the campaign than he was at this point in the 2020 campaign or the 2016 campaign.”

What about his opponent? Vice President Kamala Harris has been on an entirely different trajectory than Trump, and it is not good news for her. The public viewed her favorably for her first six months as vice president. And then, when the inflation, border chaos and other results of the Biden-Harris administration began to kick in, Harris sank underwater. Quickly.

By January 2022, when she had been in office a year, Harris’ unfavorable rating exceeded her favorable rating by 14 points, again according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. By the start of this election year, January 2024, she was 20 points underwater. On July 21, the day President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, Harris was 14 points underwater.

And then — whoosh! With the feeble and senescent Biden out of the reelection picture, Democratic enthusiasm and Harris’ favorability soared. By late September, she was actually above water, albeit by a single percentage point. That was a big jump from having been 14 points underwater.

But now Harris’ progress has stopped. She has slipped back underwater by a single point. “The momentum of Kamala Harris has stalled,” Enten said. Her top aides “feel like they have to change something that’s going on in their campaign because they were seeing a rise, and now it has stalled out.”

That obviously does not mean Harris will lose; Trump himself has proven that an underwater candidate can win. And Trump is farther underwater than Harris. But the trend for Trump is up, and the trend for Harris is down.

Meanwhile, what is extraordinary is Trump’s ability to improve his favorability rating in the face of relentlessly hostile media coverage. Back in August, at the end of Harris’ first month of campaigning, the conservative Media Research Center found that Harris’ media coverage had been 84% positive, higher than another other major party nominee ever, while Trump’s media coverage was 89% negative. Against a headwind like that, Trump’s improvement in favorability is remarkable.

So is there a cause and effect here? It’s entirely possible that wildly negative media coverage is actually causing many Americans to view Trump more favorably. After all, the media is one of the least-trusted institutions in American public life, and if top media figures say something, millions of Americans are likely to believe the opposite. It’s hard to see Trump-bashing as helping Trump, but that might be what is going on.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/as-attacks-intensify-trump-becomes-more-popular/

Residency revoked for Pakistani migrant accused of raping 14-year-old at bus stop in Italy

Bozen (Archivbild) – Foto: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozen#

Italian authorities have revoked the residence permit of a 40-year-old Pakistani man in custody for the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl at a bus stop.

Bolzano’s Police Commissioner Paolo Sartori issued a decree stripping the suspect of his residency rights and ordering his expulsion from Italy following his arrest for the sexual assault that occurred in the Casanova district.

The man, currently being held in pre-trial detention, had previously been involved in a criminal complaint for a similar offense.

The suspect, who worked professionally in the restaurant sector, arrived in Italy several years ago. Initially residing in Varese and later Verona, where he remains officially registered, he had recently come to Bolzano for temporary work and was staying with a friend.

According to the police, the assault occurred at around 7:30 p.m. on Friday near a bus shelter in Casanova after the young girl separated from a group of friends.

Il Riformista reported how the suspect approached his victim and asked for directions before apprehending her and dragging her into some bushes by the bus stop where the sexual assault took place.

After approximately 15 minutes, the schoolgirl managed to escape and asked a woman on the street for help. The bystander called the authorities and both the police and ambulance arrived at the scene.

Commissioner Sartori stated that the Prosecutor’s Office has yet to re-interview the minor, and her identity and other details remain undisclosed for privacy.

The attack comes amid a spate of sexual assaults by foreigners across Italy, leading Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini to speak out recently about other cases.

After a 27-year-old woman was gang raped earlier this month in a park in Turin by several North African migrants, Salvini wrote on social media, “Let’s see if there will be a judge in this case too who will force us to keep this precious foreign ‘resource’ in Italy too,” alluding to the recent decision by a Rome court to block the deportation of illegal migrants to asylum processing centers in Albania.


Italian authorities have revoked the residence permit of a 40-year-old Pakistani man in custody for the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl at a bus stop.

Bolzano’s Police Commissioner Paolo Sartori issued a decree stripping the suspect of his residency rights and ordering his expulsion from Italy following his arrest for the sexual assault that occurred in the Casanova district.

The man, currently being held in pre-trial detention, had previously been involved in a criminal complaint for a similar offense.

The suspect, who worked professionally in the restaurant sector, arrived in Italy several years ago. Initially residing in Varese and later Verona, where he remains officially registered, he had recently come to Bolzano for temporary work and was staying with a friend.

According to the police, the assault occurred at around 7:30 p.m. on Friday near a bus shelter in Casanova after the young girl separated from a group of friends.

Il Riformista reported how the suspect approached his victim and asked for directions before apprehending her and dragging her into some bushes by the bus stop where the sexual assault took place.

After approximately 15 minutes, the schoolgirl managed to escape and asked a woman on the street for help. The bystander called the authorities and both the police and ambulance arrived at the scene.

Commissioner Sartori stated that the Prosecutor’s Office has yet to re-interview the minor, and her identity and other details remain undisclosed for privacy.

The attack comes amid a spate of sexual assaults by foreigners across Italy, leading Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini to speak out recently about other cases.

After a 27-year-old woman was gang raped earlier this month in a park in Turin by several North African migrants, Salvini wrote on social media, “Let’s see if there will be a judge in this case too who will force us to keep this precious foreign ‘resource’ in Italy too,” alluding to the recent decision by a Rome court to block the deportation of illegal migrants to asylum processing centers in Albania.

Interior ministry figures cited recently by Italian journalist Francesca Totolo showed that 11,141 Italian women were raped by foreign nationals in Italy between 2018 and 2023, equating to nearly five cases a day.

In June, a 27-year-old Iraqi migrant attempting to enter Italy illegally on a distressed boat was arrested for raping a 16-year-old fellow passenger before choking her to death, while earlier this month Remix News reported how a 10-year-old child had undergone an abortion following a rape by a Bangladeshi migrant at an asylum center in a small village outside Brescia.

Locals had taken to the streets back in 2015 about a local hotel being used as migrant accommodation but the protests were ignored.

https://rmx.news/article/residency-revoked-for-pakistani-migrant-accused-of-raping-14-year-old-at-bus-stop-in-italy/