Allah's Willing Executioners

Pope John Paul II’s Polish diocese is embracing gender ideology, even going so far as to welcome a gender-confused “trans” activist into its synodal process.

The Archdiocese of Krakow released its Report of Synodal Work, marking the conclusion of the first stage of the Second Pastoral Synod. Both were influenced by 54-year-old trans activist Maria Minakowska (born Marek Jerzy Minakowski). The document proposes creating pastoral “safe havens” for LGBTQ+ individuals modeled on the ecumenical association “Wiara i Tęcza” (“Faith and Rainbow”). It also calls for open dialogue with modernist ideology, respect for individual conscience regardless of choices, and rejection of both traditional norms and “stigmatizing” language, such as calling gender ideology a “plague.”

The Krakow Synod is led by Grzegorz Ryś, who was created a cardinal by Francis on September 30, 2023. He was appointed Archbishop of Krakow by Pope Leo XIV on November 26, 2025.

“This is undoubtedly a great ‘success’ for gender ideology, right at the very beginning of the Second Synod of Krakow, but certainly not the last, which is why it may go down in history as the First Polish Rainbow Synod,” Father Dariusz Oko, a philosophy professor at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, said in a commentary published on TV Republika.

“[This is] because if you accept the arch-atheistic gender ideology, then most of Catholic teaching on man and marriage must immediately be thrown into the trash.”

The Polish synodal report contains problematic recommendations, beginning with the proposal to establish “pastoral safe havens” modeled on the “Faith and Rainbow” organization.

“Faith and Rainbow” is an association of homosexual and gender-confused people seeking to reconcile their sexual orientation or gender identity with Christian faith. According to Fr. Oko, its leaders advocate that the Catholic Church conform its moral teachings to modern sexual inclinations, rather than call believers to conform to divine revelation, including the commandments.

The controversy surrounding “Faith and Rainbow” is further amplified by the prominent role given to Maria Minakowska as secretary of the synodal team affiliated with the organization. Minakowska, a biological male who was divorced from his wife in 2024, underwent voluntary castration in January 2025 and identifies as a trans woman. The father of one has become the primary “media face” of the Synod.

“I am changing the Church from inside,” Minakowska said.

Another major point of contention is the document’s call for “true respect for human conscience” and its insistence that personal dignity must always rank above “excluding structures and harmful stereotypes.”

However, according to traditional Catholic theology, conscience must be formed in accordance with objective moral truth; thus, respecting conscience regardless of its decisions means legitimizing lifestyles that involve permanent mortal sin, such as cohabitation, polyamory, or non-marital sexual practice. Framing traditional moral rules and Catholic commandments as “excluding structures and harmful stereotypes” denigrates authentic Church teachings on chastity and marriage.

The report’s recommendation to engage in an “open, honest dialogue with contemporary human sciences” is likewise deeply problematic. Under the guise of scientific dialogue, the document encourages the uncritical adoption of secular gender and queer theories, which claim that biological sex is a fluid cultural construct.

Finally, the report explicitly demands an end to using words like “zaraza” (“plague”) when referring to gender ideology. Fr. Oko read this reference as a direct attack on the former Archbishop of Łódź, Marek Jędraszewski, who famously used the term “rainbow plague” to warn against the dangers of gender ideology on August 1, 2019.

“Our land is thankfully no longer affected by the red plague, but this does not mean there is no new danger that wants to enslave our souls, our hearts and our minds. Not Marxist, not Bolshevik, but born of the same spirit: neo-Marxist. Not red, but rainbow,” Jędraszewski had said.

Although Cardinal Ryś rarely speaks about gender theory, he has long been open to discussing it.   In a 2013 article published in the left-wing Polish Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny, he raised three questions that reveal willingness to bend Catholic teaching on sexuality: the role of culture in shaping masculinity and femininity, the risk of reducing culture to limiting stereotypes, and above all how to put into practice Pope Francis’s encouragement to a patient and non-judgmental dialogue with “LGBT Catholics.”

The late Pope John Paul II, then known as Karol Wojtyła, was appointed the Archbishop of Kraków in 1963, a role he continued until 1978, when he was elected Pope. Throughout his life, his writings and teachings supported Catholic doctrine on marriage, sexuality and the family.

lifesitenews

Foreigners account for a massive share of thefts, sexual violence, and robberies on Paris public transport in 2025, according to new government data.

According to compilations from the SSMSI data files, foreigners accounted in 2025 for 87 percent of simple thefts on Île-de-France public transport, 60 percent of robberies, and 38 percent of physical assault.

In addition, foreigners account for 61 percent of sexual violence cases on Paris public transport and its surrounding regions.

National figures for foreigners committing crimes on public transport are lower but still high, approximately 76 percent of simple-theft suspects are foreigners and 71 percent of all theft suspects are foreigners.

Some groups are highly overrepresented among foreigners.

Maghrebi nationals, for instance, account for about 40 percent of theft suspects in transport nationwide, while making up roughly 2 percent of the national population, according to data analyst Marc Vanguard.

🔴 Des chiffres CHOC sur l'insécurité viennent de sortir.

👉 Dans les transports en commun, les étrangers représentent 87% des mis en cause pour vols simples en Île-de-France, et 76% sur la France entière.

Tous les chiffres dans ce fil 🧵⬇️ pic.twitter.com/WK38I3FlKL

— Marc Vanguard (@marc_vanguard) September 10, 2026

INSEE’s latest estimate puts foreigners at 9.1 percent of France’s population in 2025, or around 6.3 million people. Their share is higher in Île-de-France, especially in the multicultural Seine-Saint-Denis department, but the crime for foreigners is still disproportionately high.

In total, police and gendarmerie recorded 104,880 victims of theft, violence, or payment fraud in public transport nationwide in 2025, down 2 percent from 2024 and 22 percent from 2016 — the lowest level in a decade, including the pandemic years.

🇫🇷‼️ A Brazilian tourist was subjected to a vicious sexual assault on a French train on Wednesday morning, and only escaped being raped thanks to the intervention of a brave woman who filmed the assailant to scare him off.

Jhordana, 26, had been visiting her brother in Paris.… pic.twitter.com/pxOTu4fZXf

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 19, 2025

Theft without violence still accounts for 77 percent of those victims. Thefts and payment frauds fell but recorded physical and sexual violence rose slightly, jumping 3 percent. Drug-use and trafficking suspects in transport rose another 5 percent after the sharp Olympic-year jump in 2024.

It should be noted that among the “French” perpetrators, their potential migration background is not recorded. There are approximately 10 million people in France with a foreign background, including second-generation citizens with a migration background. As a result, a French citizen who is an ethnic Algerian, for instance, would be recorded as a French perpetrator in all crime statistics. France does not keep data on the race of crime suspects, as required by national law.

More broadly speaking, there are estimates that foreigners and French citizens with a migration background account for two out of three crimes in France.

rmx

Strasbourg’s living instrument, foreign criminals, and the neutralization of democratic sovereignty.

by Lars Møller 

The European Court of Human Rights has become a singularly arrogant institution of anti-democratic governance in contemporary Europe. Its administration of the Convention has severed the link between popular consent and the fundamental decisions that shape national life—border control, the removal of foreign offenders, and the preservation of social order.

What was originally presented by the Council of Europe as a limited safeguard against totalitarian excess has evolved into a judicial machinery that, as a matter of course, privileges the claims of non-citizens and criminals over the security and continuity of the native majority. The consequence is a creeping transfer of sovereign power from elected parliaments to an unelected international tribunal whose rulings accelerate demographic and cultural transformation while insulating itself from electoral correction. 

At the heart of the British constitutional tradition lies the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Law emerges from the contest of representatives who must periodically submit themselves to the judgement of the electorate. The English historian David Starkey has repeatedly insisted that this arrangement constitutes the essential character of English liberty: the capacity of the political nation to revise its own rules when circumstances demand it. The incorporation of the European Convention through the Human Rights Act 1998 inverted that hierarchy. Final interpretive authority passed to distant Strasbourg judges who owe no accountability to British voters.

When those judges determine that a democratically enacted deportation policy or sentencing regime conflicts with an evolving reading of the Convention, the will of the elected legislature is frozen. Recourse exists only through the slow, uncertain path of treaty amendment or withdrawal—options that successive governments have treated as politically toxic. The practical consequence is that the electorate may change governments yet find the decisive instruments of policy still constrained by a non-parliamentary, yet sovereign body that it never elected and cannot dismiss.

The inappropriate displacement of democratic authority is compounded by the Court’s self-granted doctrine of the “living instrument.” The original text of 1950 is treated as a provisional sketch whose meaning expands according to the judges’ assessment of contemporary European values. Lord Sumption has observed that the technique converts an international treaty recording the limits of state consent into an open-ended legislative power exercised by an external court.

Rights are discovered that the original framers neither contemplated nor intended. Article 8’s protection of private and family life is stretched to encompass the social and cultural ties formed by long-term foreign offenders; Article 3’s prohibition of inhuman treatment is interpreted so broadly that substandard prison conditions or inadequate healthcare in a country of origin become absolute bars to removal. The Court thereby manufactures procedural and substantive entitlements for defendants and convicts that no national legislature has enacted. Legislative power, once the exclusive domain of those answerable to the public, is appropriated by jurists whose expansion of jurisdiction requires no further democratic ratification.

The philosophical premise underlying this expansion is the elevation of abstract individual claims above the common good of the political community. Classical constitutionalism understood rights as historically conditioned achievements of particular societies, balanced against the reciprocal duties of citizenship and the collective interest in order. The modern human-rights framework, however, inverts the hierarchy. Absolute or near-absolute individual protections—especially those asserted by non-citizens who have violated the host society’s criminal law—override democratic consensus on matters of national survival.

Foreign nationals convicted of serious violence, drug trafficking, or sexual offences routinely invoke Article 8 to remain in the country on the ground that they have established family relationships or private lives there. Article 3 is deployed to block return whenever the destination state cannot guarantee Western European standards of incarceration or medical care. The native majority, whose safety is compromised and whose social trust is eroded by the continued presence of such offenders, possesses no equivalent legal instrument with which to assert its own interest. Democracy is thereby neutralized on the very questions—who belongs, who may be excluded, how public order is maintained—that define the boundaries of the political community.

Starkey’s deeper objection concerns the metaphysical status of judicially granted rights. They are presented as universal, timeless truths independent of history and culture. In reality, they are products of a specific post-war European settlement, subsequently reinterpreted by a judicial elite whose cultural assumptions diverge from those of the populations they govern. To impose a rigid universal code upon nations whose legal and social traditions evolved differently is to override the organic development of those traditions.

The living-instrument doctrine accelerates the process by continually updating the code according to the Court’s own progressive lights rather than according to the evolving consent of national electorates. The effect is cultural homogenization under the guise of rights protection, achieved through judicial fiat rather than democratic deliberation.

The concrete consequences appear most starkly in the repeated frustration of deportation. Cases accumulate in which serious foreign offenders—drug dealers, violent criminals, sexual predators—succeed in remaining because they have fathered children, formed relationships, or simply lived long enough to acquire private-life claims. Governments across Europe have recorded the resulting damage to public confidence.

Prison authorities report difficulty in controlling radicalization when high-risk inmates successfully challenge isolation or separation regimes under Article 8. The cumulative message is that the legal system privileges the comfort and continuity of the offender over the security of the host population. When such outcomes become routine, the native majority reasonably concludes that its own interests rank lower in the hierarchy of protected values.

Recent political reaction confirms the depth of the problem. Coalitions of member states—including the United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, and Poland—have issued joint declarations demanding that the Court recalibrate its balancing exercise. They insist that greater weight be given to the seriousness of the offence and far less to the social and family ties of the foreign criminal; that infrastructural shortcomings in receiving countries cease to function as automatic bars to removal; and that the concept of inhuman treatment under Article 3 be confined to the most severe circumstances. These demands represent a belated recognition that the Court’s expansive jurisprudence has become incompatible with the elementary requirements of democratic self-government and public safety.

Yet the Court’s institutional incentives run in the opposite direction. Judicial prestige is measured by the progressive enlargement of rights, not by deference to national majorities. Reform from within therefore faces structural resistance.

Defenders of the present regime reply that democracy itself requires institutional checks against the tyranny of the majority. Human rights, they maintain, protect the dignity and freedoms without which democratic politics cannot function. However, the argument confuses two distinct claims. Limited constitutional restraints that protect core political liberties—speech, assembly, fair trial—may indeed be compatible with majority rule. The open-ended expansion of substantive claims by an external court that systematically subordinates the security interests of the citizenry to the private lives of foreign offenders is a different enterprise. It does not preserve democracy; it disables it on the questions that most directly affect the continuity of the demos. When the native population loses the capacity to decide who may remain within its territory after committing serious crimes, the political community itself is placed under judicial trusteeship.

The longer trajectory is deeply disturbing. An unelected judiciary, interpreting an elastic instrument according to its own evolving lights, progressively disables the democratic mechanisms by which nations regulate membership and maintain order. Demographic and cultural change proceeds under the protection of rights that the majority never granted and cannot revoke.

The native populations of Europe find themselves governed by a legal order that treats their collective preferences as presumptively suspect and the claims of outsiders as presumptively privileged. Parliamentary sovereignty is reduced to a ceremonial residue. The common good is subordinated to an abstract individualism enforced by international judges. What remains is a formal democracy whose most consequential decisions have already been removed from the reach of the electorate.

americanthinker

In recent years, Israel’s Mossad has helped thwart some 50 attacks in twenty countries, not a few of them in Britain. Perhaps Israel should stop warning ingrates who sanction her to get Muslim votes.

by Giulio Meotti

I often recall that the cowardice of the political establishment pushed the United Kingdom to refuse asylum to the Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan, Asia Bibi, because it might have caused “violent unrest” among the Muslim population and endangered embassies in Islamic countries.

The left in power in London has now decided to sanction and dump Israel, once again to pander to the Muslim population that is decisive at the ballot box.

The Guardian writes it: “Premier Burnham sees sanctions on Israel as an electoral asset.” Whose votes? The BBC explains: “Muslim voters”.

From the Daily Mail: “A monumental act of national self-harm to stop Muslim voters from abandoning Labour for the Greens.”

At what price?

Former British Security Minister, Tom Tugendhat, explains it to The Telegraph:

“Israel is one of our most important intelligence partners and has been for many, many years. I can tell you, as Security Minister, that many attacks have been thwarted thanks to cooperation with Israel, which has helped us protect British citizens from terrorist attacks.”

In August the former head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen, revealed that Israeli intelligence had helped thwart many attacks in Britain during his tenure at the agency, between 2016 and 2021. He also reported that a former director of Britain’s MI5 had personally thanked him for helping to avert numerous threats on British soil.

In 2012, Israel was decisive in the security of the London Olympic Games.

In 2016 it emerged that Israeli technology for tracking terrorists could have prevented the Islamic State attacks in Paris and Belgium but was boycotted. An Israeli security company had offered tracking software to the Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure (DGSI), France’s main intelligence agency; it was software capable of flagging the ISIS terrorist cell responsible for the attacks in Paris and Belgium. The offer was rejected, apparently after an official made clear that Israeli technology could not be purchased.

Israeli Mossad has helped thwart some 50 attacks in twenty countries.

Australia stopped in time a plan to blow up a flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi. A bomb, hidden in a meat grinder, was to be carried on board. “Israeli intelligence thwarted the downing of an Australian airliner, an unimaginable massacre,” Benjamin Netanyahu declared.

A year after the Australian case, Israel stopped a jihadist attack in Denmark. Again in Denmark, Israel thwarted another.

Israel had warned Belgian officials weeks before the attack of inadequate security measures at Brussels’ Zaventem airport. The warning had come from Israeli officials tasked with assessing security standards at airports operating flights to Tel Aviv. The Israelis had found “significant shortcomings” at the airport, the scene a few days later of two deadly ISIS explosions.

Israel helped thwart attacks such as the one planned by ISIS terrorists during a football match between host Albania and Israel. Then attacks in Belgium, Turkey and France.

Donald Trump revealed Israel’s alert about an ISIS plan to blow up aircraft bound for Europe using explosives inside laptops.

Then Israel stopped an Iranian attack in Paris.

After the London bombs of 7 July 2005 it emerged that the leader of the bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, had been in Israel a few weeks before two Britons linked to Khan blew themselves up in a café in Tel Aviv.

Now they are ready to explain on the front pages that the government of Israel “knew” about the attacks of 7 October 2023 and did not move to prevent them.

Brilliant: for a political calculation Israel let the terrorists tear 1,200 of its own people to pieces.

It’s the old antisemitic slander trope that the Jews are responsible for their own fate.

Benjamin Netanyahu said: “According to Churchill, democracies suffer from a kind of torpor. A disease, he called it. And they wake up only when they hear the gong, the gong of danger. Well, you are hearing it. We must be strong. We must be more powerful than the barbarians, otherwise they will not merely be at the gates: they will smash the gates and destroy our societies.”

We are still there, at the sentence of the great Saul Bellow: “In their concern for the decadence of the West, the Israelis have a lesson for the world.”

Are they so decadent and so obsessed with giving moral lessons to those who defend themselves against terrorism that they are ready for this electoral calculation that will dump the cost onto the world’s lives and security?

A bit like François Hollande’s socialist government: “We knew that terrorists had infiltrated among the migrants.”

They knew, and the gong would sound at the Bataclan.

israelnationalnews

Ahead of Rosh Hashana, the widely unpopular Burnham government, replacing the widely unpopular Starmer government, decided to spend its time attacking the Jewish State. This seems like a strange preoccupation for a government where the public is concerned with affordability and the mass invasion of Muslim migrants, but perhaps that’s the point.

Thus far, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband gave an extensive speech denouncing Israel. Prime Minister Andrew Burnham, who as mayor of Greater Manchester had been complicit in the plague of Muslim rape gangs, claimed that ‘We will always stand with the underdog” meaning the tiny minority of 400 Muslims in the Middle East over the might majority of 6 million Jews.

The Labour Party issued a bulletin declaring that the “situation in Palestine is a moral emergency.” Unlike say the situations in Communist China, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Apart from this lovely way of wishing happy new year to the Jewish community, this frenetic pandering reflects the political reality.

The UK government’s approval rating is at 21%. The disapproval rating is at 53%. And that’s the ‘honeymoon’ period for the new corrupt leader replacing the old corrupt leader. So time to change the subject to the Jews while pandering to Muslims who increasingly play the role of kingmakers in the Labour Party. (Americans are getting a taste of that lately with the Dems.) And make it seem like a heroic move to stand with the poor underdogs who have colonized the Middle East, parts of Asia, Africa and now the UK.

frontpagemag

More than a third of Britons fear there are “no-go zones” in London where sharia law dominates the streets, a bombshell new poll has found.

A survey of more than 2,000 UK adults, carried out in March and published on Thursday, has revealed that 34 per cent of the public believe there are areas of the capital where non-Muslims cannot enter.

A slightly higher proportion (36 per cent) disagreed with this and around a fifth of people said they did not even know if this was the case or not.

The poll was carried out by YouGov for the “London has fallen? Misperceptions of crime, race, religion and life in the UK capital” study by King’s College London.

In a world exclusive interview with GB News last week, US President Donald Trump warned that the capital has become a “much different place”, ravaged by “very high” levels of crime.

He told The People’s Channel: “You have areas in Paris and London where the police don’t want to even go in them, there’s no law and order.

“They’re afraid to go in them. Either they’re afraid or they just don’t, you know, they don’t want to lose their life.”

He added: “London was a very safe place, and now you have a different culture that has entered… It’s a different culture, different people.”

The US President has long despaired at the state of Britain’s capital, repeatedly exchanging barbs with Lord Khan over the past decade.

Mr Trump told GB News the London Mayor was “not somebody that should be representing London and the UK”.

He said: “You have a terrible mayor. He’s a nasty guy, nasty person. He’s a very bad mayor.

“You have crime that’s very high, and London’s a very much different place than if you took somebody from 15 or 20 years ago and brought them through London, they wouldn’t know what happened. Such a different place.”

Earlier this year, the Mayor accused the President of spreading “lies and propaganda” about the capital as he demanded British diplomats around the world help counter the spread of “disinformation”.

And reacting to the polling in The Times, he blamed a “dark blizzard of disinformation about our capital city online”.

Lord Khan said: “The most recent ONS data shows you are less likely to be a victim of violent crime in London than you are in the rest of England and Wales. And this year the capital came top of the World’s Best Cities ranking for the 11th year in a row.

“The facts show that London is on the rise. Sadly, though, a report released by King’s College London today shows that many British people see things differently.

“The gulf between the real London and the false idea of London that exists inside some people’s heads has never been more pronounced. The cause is a dark blizzard of disinformation about our capital city online, where London is described as a lawless dystopia in decline.”

Lord Khan has previously said the capital was not perfect, but is safer than major US cities.

Last year, the President took the feud to the United Nations, accusing Lord Khan of being a “terrible mayor” and warning sharia law was coming to London – in remarks the Labour politician rejected as “appalling and bigoted”.

In May, a GB News investigation unearthed controversial sharia-based legal services, raising fresh concerns about social cohesion and the growth of a parallel pseudo-legal system in the British capital.

Sharia listings and websites reviewed by The People’s Channel advertise a range of services rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, including marriage contracts, divorce proceedings and inheritance arrangements.

Although it remains unclear how many sharia councils exist in the UK, the evidence suggests there are at least five operating across London alone.

Last month, a YouGov poll found that the majority of Londoners do not want Sir Sadiq to stand for a fourth term as Mayor amid fury at the levels of crime in the capital.

The poll found that 56 per cent of London residents believe the newly-appointed Labour peer should stand down and hand the Labour candidacy to a new name at the next election in 2028.

It also uncovered that 57 per cent believing the Mayor has handled the issue of crime badly compared to less than a third (31 per cent) saying he has done well.

Lord Khan is yet to confirm whether he will launch a bid for a fourth term in City Hall.

However, the London Mayor teased another run earlier this year, saying he had “already worked out” his campaign for the next vote.

He told The London Standard: “Once the election begins, we know who the candidates are, I will have a strategy to deal with both Count Binface and Reform.”

gbnews

Emma Trimble on the escalating scenes of unrest now sweeping Britain as the illegal immigrant swarm enters a new phase.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Tuesday put the spotlight on the case of a violent African migrant who allegedly injured two Rome police officers but was rapidly released from prison by a judge hours later.

Meloni condemned the violent man’s stroll to almost instant freedom as “frankly unacceptable,” as it undermines the state’s credibility as a whole.

According to Italian outlets, the incident occurred over the weekend in central Rome’s Via Cavour. At the time, a man reportedly described as a 29 year-old Senegalese national allegedly bearing a French passport sat outside a local business and refused to step aside.

Two police officers arrived at the scene and mediated with the man — with one of the officers extending his hand to help the aggressor stand up. At that point, the Senegalese man assaults the two officers and violently resisted the arrest, causing injuries to the policemen.

Following his detention, the Senegalese national was brought before a court in Rome and charged with assault, resisting arrest, contempt of authority, and causing bodily harm — however, despite the severity of the charges, a local judge ordered his immediate release just hours after the events took place.

Domenico Pianese, Secretary General of Italy’s COISP independent national police union, detailed during an interview that the two injured police officers received a seven-day recovery prognosis.

“At this point, the question can no longer be put off: Is it still possible in this country to be a police officer and expect those who attack an officer to actually face consequences?” Pianese asked in an official statement.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Meloni utilized her social media presence to bring the outrageous developments into the spotlight. She shared footage of the incident and recounted that the two police officers were injured while performing their duties.

“The man, charged with assault, resisting arrest, contempt of court, and causing bodily harm, is brought before a judge: the arrest is upheld, but he is released just a few hours later,” Meloni wrote.

“There are an increasing number of incidents in which decisions undermine the work of those who strive every day to ensure the safety of citizens, often putting their own safety at risk,” she added.

“The government will continue to strengthen protections and tools for law enforcement. But when, after behavior of this severity and after an assault on those who represent the state, a person is released within a few hours, it is not merely difficult to understand. It is frankly unacceptable, because it undermines the credibility of the state as a whole,” she concluded.

Queste immagini mostrano due agenti aggrediti e feriti mentre stanno facendo il proprio dovere, durante l’arresto di un individuo. L’uomo, accusato di aggressione, resistenza, oltraggio e lesioni, viene portato davanti al giudice: l’arresto viene convalidato, ma lui torna… pic.twitter.com/t02UUWjMeg

— Giorgia Meloni (@GiorgiaMeloni) September 8, 2026

The Italian leader has repeatedly criticized Italian judges who exhibit a lenient attitude towards criminals in the country — including those accused of heinous crimes.

Last week, Meloni fiercely condemned the actions of a judge that released a Bengali national accused of sexually abusing a 13 year-old girl in the city of Turin.

According to local reports, the perpetrator was rapidly released from prison because he expressed to be “sorry” for his crime.

breitbart

Jordan Bardella has renewed his demand that France shut mosques controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and dissolve the networks built around them, keeping pressure on a question that has gone nowhere in Brussels.

The National Rally president, who chairs the Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament, said his party would proscribe the movement if it won power in France. “We will close radical mosques and dissolve all organisations that promote Islamism,” he told GB News.

He was speaking on September 4 at the Reform UK conference in Birmingham, England, where he signed a memorandum of understanding with Nigel Farage on stopping Channel crossings.

Bardella has previously put the number of mosques he regards as radical and under Brotherhood control at 139, and has called for the dissolution of any association or network that repeats the movement’s ideas.

That figure comes from an intelligence report presented to France’s national defence and security council on May 21, 2025. It counted 139 places of worship affiliated to Musulmans de France, described as the Brotherhood’s main French offshoot.

The report put that at about 7 per cent of the 2,800 mosques recorded in the country, with a further 68 considered close to the federation. Attendance at both averaged some 91,000 worshippers on Fridays.

It also identified 280 associations tied to the movement, against the 53 the federation acknowledges, and 21 schools teaching about 4,200 pupils.

France’s National Assembly voted 157 to 101 on January 22 for a non-binding resolution asking the European Commission to place the Brotherhood and its leaders on the European Union’s list of terrorist organisations. The Dutch House of Representatives passed a comparable motion in March.

The Commission has maintained that the initiative rests with member states. That position was challenged in February in an oral question signed by more than 30 MEPs from the Patriots for Europe, European Conservatives and Reformists and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups.

French interior minister Laurent Nuñez has since described such a listing as impossible to implement, telling Le Monde that no Western democracy had taken that route and that France preferred to act case by case.

The argument also has a Brussels edge. The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), a network named in the French report and based in the EU capital, is due to mark the European Action Day Against Islamophobia on September 21 with EU co-funding.

brusselssignal

We’re all pretty familiar with the culture of deception that has infected much of today’s news media.  Some of this is cynically driven by overt ideological agendas.  Some is also the result of ingrained bias on the part of the compilers and presenters of “information” about current events, being largely imparted by the modern J schools that train and “certify” our journalists.

True, some news sources are more objectively reliable than others, and it remains our responsibility to properly judge them all on this criterion.

Using news manipulation to motivate public policy was showcased to me when in high school history class.  William Randolph Hearst used his vast newspaper empire to provoke the U.S. into going to war against Spain.  The cost was, fortunately, not particularly great, and it launched the career of a subsequently famous world leader, Theodore Roosevelt.

Nowadays, we have a plethora of information sources.  Google is currently attracting a lot of scrutiny; others are likely to be next.  But the First Amendment gives free rein to sources of propaganda as well as those of genuine information.  It remains to the audience of all this blather to scrutinize their input.

There are also the two prevailing methods of deception: commission and omission.  Outright lying is more easily spotted than leaving out pertinent details, so omission is often a “go-to” for deceivers.

A fairly recent example is the COVID panic.  In order to establish a precedent for a catastrophic pandemic, here and there reference was made to the “Spanish” influenza that happened around the time of the First World War.  The death toll was far greater than with COVID, partly because of the state of medical technology at that time.  What was omitted from the common narrative was that the influenza mostly killed young people, whereas COVID was and is considered particularly dangerous for the elderly.

Scientific American, prior to its capture by a woke mob, not only explained the statistical exclusion of elderly victims, but also said the first record of the disease was at a National Guard base in Massachusetts, not Spain.  The infection spread throughout the rest of the world after the soldiers at the base were deployed to the war in Europe.  The article explained the possibility of the age disparity by suggesting that there may have been an earlier flu pandemic in the late nineteenth century that inoculated the survivors of that event, who were then the elderly of the time of WW1.  A physician friend, who also read the article, suggested the other possibility of a cytokine storm, where young immune systems can react to infections with much greater intensity than with older folks.  They can literally drown in their own phlegm.

This brings us to the mother of all modern deceptions: global warming, or climate change.  The perpetrators of this hoax are, thus far, successfully relying on the general public’s pervasive ignorance of meteorology, climatology and paleontology.  This falls under the heading of omission.  Underpinning this pervasive deception is the eternal fact that fear is a great motivator, though it is not usually conducive to reasonable reactions.

What next?  As dire predictions continually fail to materialize, the climate change hoax may be losing ground.  Regardless of fear, people still like to live their lives in peace and comfort.  Americans, especially, are inherently suspicious of demagogues who are trying to enslave the masses and reduce their standard of living.  The strident true believers keep pushing to punish the rest of us who eat meat and enjoy the convenience of automobiles and gas appliances.

Meanwhile, a particular place in Hell should still be reserved for the purveyors of a deception by commission that led to the “Great” Recession of 2008.  For several years, the demagogues of the left kept flogging “redlining” as an example of minority persecution at the hands of racist lending institutions.  Ultimately, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977.  Eventually, the legal mandate to look the other way when considering credit score while granting purchase mortgages to designated “minorities,” led to a plethora of uncreditworthy borrowers running up a mass of questionable debt.

This led to an avalanche of foreclosures.  Ordinary sellers were harmed by the price depression resulting from all of the distressed properties falling onto the market.  Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal penned “The Fannie Mae Gang” to describe the damage done by lending home purchase money to uncreditworthy borrowers.  Thomas Sowell has since pointed out that, prior to the CRA, the foreclosure rate among inner-city minorities was identical to the population as a whole.  Yeah, another crummy hoax.

americanthinker